This post is made to inform the unaware reader of what is meant by the term "Eurabia", in addition to what was written in the piece Arafat`s Legacy for Europe posted earlier on the blog. I suggest you read these pieces (to begin with) to have it explained to you by historian Bat Ye’or, whose important book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis deals wich I also suggest you read in this context for a more in-depth view. Furthermore I suggest you also read essayist Fjordman`s writings on this topic found below (hyperlinks in the original items).
Here are first some quotes regarding the Bat Yeor`s work on Eurabia:
“The extraordinary researches of Bat Ye’or on the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the growing "dhimmitude" (status of submission) ”
La Forza della Ragione - Oriana Fallaci
“Bat Ye’or has traced a nearly secret history of Europe over the past thirty years, convincingly showing how the Euro-Arab Dialogue has blossomed from a minor discussion group into the engine for the continent’s Islamization. In delineating this phenomenon, she also provides the intellectual resources with which to resist it. Will her message be listened to?”
- Daniel Pipes
No writer has done more than Bat Ye’or to draw attention to the menacing character of Islamic extremism. Future historians will one day regard her coinage of the term ‘Eurabia’ as prophetic. Those who wish to live in a free society must be eternally vigilant. Bat Ye’or vigilance is unrivalled.”
- Niall Ferguson
Such a Euroarabian identity is dangerous for the Jewish people. Here I agree with Bat Ye’or’s argument that Europe has been engaged in a self-capitulation to Islamist demands in the name of a misconceived multiculturalism.”
- Robert Wistrich
“Bat Ye’or is one of the only analysts in the world with the courage and insight necessary to state clearly what is happening in Europe today. Her account of the betrayal by the European powers of their own identity and history will stand for future historians as a cautionary tale of cultural suicide.”
- Robert Spencer
“ This is a provocative and disturbing book. With all the drama of a master writer, Bat Ye’or presents a wide range of historical and contemporary documents and facts to tell the story of how the European Union is being subverted by Islamic hostility to the very ethics and values of Europe itself. Readers who seek a fair resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict will be shocked by the evidence produced in these pages of unfair pressures and deliberate distortions. Europe’s independence of spirit is shown in the process of being undermined. This book challenges the current demonization of Israel and should be essential reading (and re-reading) for everyone interested in true peace in the Middle East. It is also a warning to Europe not to allow the anti-American and anti-Israel pressures of Islam to subvert Europe’s true values: vibrant democracy, humanitarian free thinking, and social fair dealing.”
- Sir Martin Gilbert
Eurabia The road to Munich...
October 9, 2002, 9:15 a.m.
Eurabia
The road to Munich...
By Bat Yeor
September 11, 2001 was for millions worldwide a day of sorrow, pain, and profound sadness; a day of solemn solidarity, self-sacrifice, and prayer. For others it was a day of rejoicing, a revengeful exultation, a long-awaited triumphalism born from the death and suffering of thousands of innocent victims. They were saying: That'll teach them! America deserves it and must repent! And many were asking maliciously: Don't you have remorse for your wrongs? Why don't you ask yourself why you are hated? If we hate you, it can only be your own fault. Emerging from the ruin and distress which they had endured, Americans asked themselves: What have we done? We have been vilely attacked, yet we are accused. Why do they hate us?
And that's the snare. For iniquity engulfs those who hate, who kill — and not the hated victim. It is those who hate who are sick: sick from envy; sick from the frustration of having failed to achieve an absolute, pathological domination; sick from a schizophrenic lust for power. To heal these societies one must first diagnose the evil and not mask it under the excuse of "poverty" and "underdevelopment." Terrorism is not a consequence of poverty. Many societies are poor, yet they do not produce an organized criminality of terror. To subsidize societies which nourish ideologies of hate will not suppress terrorism, rather such pusillanimity will reinforce it.
America should not choose European ways: the road back to Munich via appeasement, collaboration, and dhimmitude. For decades at the instigation of France, Europe backed Arafat — the godfather of modern terrorism — as the champion of liberty, and their hero.
After the Yom Kippur War and the Arab oil blackmail in 1973, the then-European Community (EC) created a structure of Cooperation and Dialogue with the Arab League. The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity. The EAD operated at the highest political level, with foreign ministers on both sides, and the presidents of the EC — later the European Union (EU) — with the secretary general of the Arab League. The central body of the Dialogue, the General Commission, was responsible for planning its objectives in the political, cultural, social, economic, and technological domains; it met in private, without summary records, a common practice for European meetings.
Over the years, Euro-Arab collaboration developed at all levels: political, economic, religious and in the transfer of technologies, education, universities, radio, television, press, publishers, and writers unions. This structure became the channel for Arab immigration into Europe, of anti-Americanism, and of Judeophobia, which — linked with a general hatred of the West and its denigration — constituted a pseudo-culture imported from Arab countries. The interpenetration of European and Arab policies determined Europe's relentless anti-Israel policy and its anti-Americanism. This politico-economic edifice, with minute details, is rooted in a multiform European symbiosis with the Arab world.
German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher expressed the aims clearly in his opening speech to the Hamburg Symposium's Euro-Arab Dialogue of April 11-13, 1983 (at a time when West Germany held the presidency of the European Community) :
The Euro-Arab Dialogue would indeed remain incomplete if the political side were to be ignored or not taken seriously. Both parties to the Dialogue, both partners, should always remind themselves of the joint Memorandum issued in Cairo in 1975, the Charter of the Dialogue. The Memorandum contains the following quote: "The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the outcome of the common political will which strives for the creation of a special relationship between the two groups." We Europeans spoke out in a clear and convinced manner for a revival of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in the Vienna Declaration of June 13, 1980. Since then, the various working groups within the Dialogue have become more active and the prospects for the future are more promising.
Our Arab partners in the Dialogue have also indicated that they are in favour of continuing and intensifying this Dialogue. Both in the course of this joint venture, our Symposium, and through its outcome, it will become clear that we are determined to give the Euro-Arab Dialogue a new and long-lease of life.
Europe's economic greed was instrumentalized by Arab League policy in a long-term political strategy targeting Israel, Europe, and America. Arab economical ascendancy over the EC influenced the latter's policy toward Israel. The EAD was the vehicle for legitimizing the propaganda of the PLO, procuring it international diplomatic recognition, and conferring on Arafat's terrorist movement honor and international stature by supporting Arafat's address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 13, 1974 . Through the labyrinth of the EAD system, a policy of Israel's delegitimization was planned at both the EC's national and international levels. Approved instructions from the highest political, religious, and academic authorities functioned within the EAD's multiple commissions, implicating the media, universities, and diverse cultural activities. The EAD was the mouthpiece which diffused and popularized throughout Europe the defamation of Israel. France, Belgium, and Luxembourg were then the most active agents of the EAD.
Strategically, the Euro-Arab Cooperation was a political instrument for anti-Americanism in Europe, whose aim was to separate and weaken the two continents by an incitement to hostility and the permanent denigration of American policy in the Middle East . The cultural infrastructure of the EAD allowed the traditional cultural baggage of Arab societies, with its anti-Christian and anti-Jewish prejudices and its hostility against Israel and the West, to be imported into Europe. The discredit heaped on the infidel Judeo-Christian culture was expressed by the claim of the superiority of the Islamic civilization, at which source European scholars, over the centuries — it was said — had humbly slaked their thirst for knowledge. Drowned in this wave of Arab cultural and religious expansionism that was integrated into the cultural activities of the EAD, Europeans adopted the Arab-Islamic conception of history. The obsequiousness of certain academics, subjected to a political power dominated by economic materialism, is reminiscent of the worst periods of the decline of civilizations. The suppression of intellectual freedom imported from undemocratic Muslim countries, attached to a culture of hate against Israel, has recently led to the exclusion and boycott of Israeli academics by some of their European colleagues.
The cogs created by the EAD led the EC (later the European Union) to tolerate Palestinian terrorism on its own territory, to justify it, and finally to finance Palestinian infrastructure — later to become the Palestinian Authority — and hate-mongering educational system. The ministers and intellectuals who have created Eurabia deny the current wave of criminal attacks against European Jews, which they, themselves, have inspired. They deny the antisemitism, as they have neglected the attacks against the fundamental rights of their own citizens by delinquency and the terrorist threats, which they have allowed to develop with impunity in their countries, in exchange for financial profits. The silence and the negligence of the public authorities faced with this wave of antisemitic aggressions is but the tip of the emerged iceberg of a global policy. The EAD, which had tied Arab strategic policies for the destruction of Israel to the European economy was the Trojan horse for Europe's inclusion into the orbit of Arab-Muslim influence.
With the support of parliaments and ministries, the EAD concealed behind the Arab-Israel conflict the global jihad being perpetrated on all continents. Europe's subservience to Arab policy led the EU to give an artificial and absolute priority to the Arab-Israel conflict in international affairs. It could have been solved from the start by the integration of about 500,000 Arab-Palestinian refugees into the Arab League countries, foremost into the Emirate of Transjordan — created by Great Britain in 1922 from 78 percent of the total League of Nation mandated area of Palestine, the historical Holy Land on both sides of the Jordan river. After the 1947-49 Arab League war against Israel, this territory was increased to 83 percent of Palestine with the occupation of what became the "West Bank" of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Europe's pathological obsession with the Arab-Palestinian conflict, has obscured the criminal ongoing persecution of Christians and other minorities in Muslim lands worldwide, and the sufferings and slavery of millions from jihad wars in Africa and Asia.
The sudden collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers, the recent threat of an American boycott of what was perceived as an antisemitic Europe, President Bush's ironic criticism of Europe's moral haughtiness, and especially the rise of extreme right parties, brought responsible politicians to their senses. They had been blinded by a Palestinian fantasy ("Jenin-grad"); by racist, genocidal accusations; massive media disinformation arousing hatred on their radios and televisions against small, vulnerable Jewish communities, tracked, aggressed, criminalized, and terrorized — while the leaders of their countries looked the other way and pretended that Israel was responsible for the violent aggressions against Jews in Europe by Arab-Muslim immigrants. Then they saw criminal bands terrorizing their city suburbs, as well as the terrorist networks and rampant fanaticism, which they had overlooked for decades. Today, the likely war against Iraq has caused shivers throughout Europe, which is trembling at the possible collapse of its Arab alliances, built on foundations that implied a rupture with America and the demise of Israel. Europe had tied its Arab-Muslim friendly alliances and prosperity to a cooperation with Middle East tyrants, and by supporting Yasser Arafat's criminal policies.
Hence, the desperate move to save Arafat recently, backed by a widespread and slanderous antisemitic media campaign, together with criminal acts in Europe against Jews, that were neither checked nor condemned. Over 50 years ago the Shoah was the response to Zionism. Today, diaspora Jews and Israel would do well to foresee a possible vengeful reckoning after Saddam Hussein falls and Arafat is marginalized — an Arafat, who was courted by the EU, which greatly increased its funding to the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords of 1993, without adequate controls. The recent anti-Jewish hysteria in Europe was an advertisement to neutralize diaspora Jews, and the Israeli self-defense mechanism against Palestinian terror, which is why it was so superbly overlooked by the highest authorities. This complacent attitude has scandalized many European friends of Israel, who are much more numerous than the EAD censorship organs and the Euro-Arab terrorist networks would have us believe. Yet the majority of Europeans, who are not antisemitic, are totally unaware of most of the EAD's policy, since its key deliberations are unrecorded. More research and publications are needed in this field.
The cracks between Europe and America reveal the divergences between the choice of liberty and the road back to Munich on which the European Union continues to caper to new Arab-Islamic tunes, now called "occupation," "peace and justice," and "immigrants' rights" — themes which were composed for Israel's burial. And for Europe's demise.
— Bat Yeor, born in Egypt. A British citizen living in Switzerland since 1960, she is the author of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide.
European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 21, 2003
The pro-Saddam Hussein European manifestations of February 15th that brought millions into the streets of European capitals are the culmination of Charles de Gaulle’s political vision of a European destiny led by France. During World War II de Gaulle was the leader of French resistance against the Nazis, but his post-war anti-Americanism rallied many of his previous enemies. Hostility to America and antisemitism were strong in various French circles: the communists, the left, and particularly among the numerous politicians, civil servants, intellectuals and businessmen, who had willingly collaborated with the Germans. Those political currents had important links with the Arab-Muslim world.
De Gaulle’s vision intended to restore to France a dominant role in international affairs by the construction of a strong and united Europe as a counter-weight to American power. After the loss of Algeria in 1962, France’s last Arab colony, de Gaulle oriented his policy toward the Arab-Muslim world. During the 1960s, a French Mediterranean policy was elaborated, which would link as an economic and political geostrategical unit the European Community (EC) and the Arab League countries. But Arab collaboration had a price: the elimination of Israel. In spite of France’s efforts to bring its European partners closer to Arab views, many countries were reluctant to follow this path. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict didn’t provoke any interest or declaration from the EC.
After the Syro-Egyptian October 1973 war against Israel, and the third Arab defeat, the Arab oil producers proclaimed an oil embargo, increased the oil price four times, lowered the production, and classified the consuming countries into friends, enemies, or neutrals. Now, France’s maneuvers to align the EC on the Arab anti-Israeli policy in order to create a strong Euro-Arab bloc succeeded. The nine countries of the EC, meeting in Brussels (November 6, 1973) issued a joint Resolution, which endorsed the Franco-Arab policy in respect to Israel.
In 1974 the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was founded to strengthen the political, economic and cultural co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. The Association had about 600 members in 18 national Parliaments of the countries of the enlarged European Union (EU), as well as in the European Parliament – and all the major trends in European politics were represented. This Association organized regular meetings with Arab leaders and politicians and served as a channel between them and the European governments, the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, and the Commission of the European Communities. In other words, it was a most powerful Arab lobby functioning through European functionaries, built into the European institutions to influence European policy at its summit.
In the following years, this body was reinforced by a political, economical and cultural structure, named the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which united at the highest level the EC – later to become the European Union – and the countries of the Arab League. The Europeans tried to maintain the Dialogue on a base of economic relations, while the Arab countries tied the oil and business markets to the European alignment on their anti-Israeli policies. Even though some countries were reluctant to follow this path, the joint proclamations of the EU concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict endorsed the anti-Israeli points established previously by the Second Islamic Conference in Lahore, Pakistan (February 1974).
Henceforth, an associative diplomacy binding the Arab-Muslim countries and the EU developed in international forums and especially in decisions concerning the Middle East conflict. During Euro-Arab symposiums the oil threat was brandished and pressure was exerted on the EU, as a reminder that economic relations were inexorably tied to Europe’s political alignment with Arab anti-Zionist policy. However, the Dialogue was not restricted to influencing European foreign policy against Israel and detaching Europe from America, it also aimed at establishing permanently in Europe a massive Arab-Muslim presence by the immigration and settlement of millions of Muslims with equal rights for all, native-born and migrants alike. This policy endeavored to integrate Europe and the Arab-Muslim world into one political and economic bloc, by mixing populations (multiculturalism) while weakening the Atlantic solidarity and isolating America.
To facilitate Muslim settlements in the West, cultural changes in school teaching, universities and social life were imposed. Textbooks were rewritten in view of allaying Muslim susceptibilities, and university teachings in Middle East and Islamic history soon conformed to Arab-Muslim norms and their worldview. Recommendations were emphatically and repeatedly imposed for spreading the knowledge of the Arabic language in Europe, and the learning about the superior Islamic history and civilization. As these decisions were taken, and then implemented through the mechanism of the Dialogue that covered every country of the EU, a profound cultural Islamization — through the network of schools, universities and the blessing of Islamophile clergymen — conditioned the mentalities of two generations of European youth. To this cultural transformation was added from within the demographic pressure of an ever-increasing Muslim immigration and, from without, an all-encompassing symbiosis on every level with the Arab-Muslim world. This symbiosis built on the system of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and hence approved by the higher political authorities of the EU, covered book publishing, university exchanges, television, press and radio collaboration, theological rapprochement, youth meetings, and intense collaboration between numerous ONG organizations, humanitarian activities, workers unions, economical and financial relations. Scientific, nuclear and military training were provided as, for exemple, France’s nuclear program with Iraq, culminating in the construction of the nuclear reactor Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981.
The development of those complex ties between the Arab-Muslim world and the EU was, at its core, conditioned by an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, the Arab ambition being to detach Europe from its Atlantic ally. As Palestinian and Islamic terrorism developed, the EU — anxious to save its growing and multiple interests in the Muslim world — accused Israel and U.S. policy of provoking it. Rather than confronting Islamic terrorism, European leaders resorted to appeasement by condemning Israel. Anti-Zionism, integrated into the developing Euro-Arab relations became a European sub-culture of hate, denigration and disinformation, nourished by the inner dynamic of the Euro-Arab Dialogue that led to the rise of Eurabia. Opposing views were silenced to maintain a monolithic façade of Islamic correctness in the press and publications. From September 2000, the outburst of Palestinian terrorism within Israel triggered a violent antisemitic wave in Europe as if it had become the heart of Arabism.
France, Germany and Belgium, the troika leading Eurabia, imposed monolithic orders for the EU and their African satellites. An alliance with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising 56 countries, would provide world supremacy at the UN in some issues. The Euro-Arab bloc’s reliance on UN “international legitimacy” is based on its virtual control of this forum. Essential to the Arab League’s policy in relation to Israel, Arafat — the godfather of international terrorism — became the key regulator between the EU and the Arabs. The EU assumed the main funding of the Palestinian Authority, and until now the European Parliament refuses any investigation of how more than a billion euros of European taxpayers’ money, transferred to Arafat, has been used.
Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions. The drifting away of Europeans from America is not, therefore, due to their superior moral exigencies, as some superficial analysts write. Rather, this drift reveals a traumatic fear of a terrorism that the EU always refused to acknowledge, scapegoating instead Israel and America. It reveals the preservation, at all costs, of Arab and Muslim corrupt dictatorships, including Arafat, with whom the EU has built its economic and international political strategy, power and security. And, more threatening, it indicates a profound transformation, a mutation, whereby a civilization is drifting toward 'dhimmitude.'*
____________
*Author's note: Dhimmitude derives from the surrender of the Christian clergy and political leaders to the Muslim jihad armies, and their submission to Islamic domination of both their lands and peoples. In exchange, they received a pledge of protection ('dhimma') from the Muslim sovereign - and the cessation of the jihad war. This "protection" was conditioned on a ransom payment (jizya) that was extorted from the vanquished Christian and Jewish populations (dhimmis). Sometimes, Christian submission to Islam was rooted in personal ambition. Dhimmitude often induced self-hatred, and hatred against Jews and Christians who resisted the jihad and Muslim domination. Christian dhimmitude has been a world force for Islamization throughout history.
Eurabia and Euro-Arab Antisemitism
Eurabia and Euro-Arab Antisemitism
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 5, 2004
"The largest group of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young, disaffected white Europeans," announced a summary released March 31, 2004 to the European Parliament from the report of the European Union's racism and xenophobia monitoring center. This blatant denial of local Islamic extremism and Muslim perpetrators, as the primary source of Antisemitic actions in contemporary Western Europe, was predictable. The overt Antisemitic violence manifest in Europe over the past three years resulted from several decades of inculcation. Public denunciation by Christians and Jews of this poisonous Antisemitism forced reluctant European authorities, notably in France, to acknowledge its existence. Europe, so anxious to preach morality to Israel and the United States, suddenly stood accused of tolerating, even promoting unabashed, violent Antisemitism.
Although the vast majority of Europeans today are not Antisemitic or anti-Israeli, they are immersed in a culture of demonization of Israel, fomented by a European political entity in which nearly everything that is written and said on the Middle East conveys this anti-Israeli mentality. We can recognize in this contemporary phenomenon some aspects of the system of political, cultural, and moral conditioning that led to the Shoah. Reactivated during the past four decades, this Judeophobic conditioning, indirectly, and almost subliminally, is being implemented by the willing heirs of the genocidal fathers. They transmit and spread this Antisemitism in a new political and ideological construction, different from Nazism: the Euro-Arab war for the delegitimization and destruction of Israel.
Herein, I will give a brief outline of the Euro-Arab anti-Israeli policy: 1) the Project, 2) its institutional structure, 3) its modes of operation, and 4) its themes. The new forms of global Judeophobia that grow and develop within this system, also have anti-Christian, anti-European, and anti-Western ramifications.
The Project
The Project is articulated around two entities: European and Arab.
The European policy
The Project is an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab Mediterranean rim hostile to American influence and penetration. The project facilitated European ambitions to:
[1] play a defining political role in international relations in competition with the United States, and independent of its influence;
[2] maintain important spheres of influence in the former European Arab colonies;
[3] open huge markets for the European Economic Community’s products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries;
[4] secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe;
[5] make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by encouraging massive Arab immigration into Europe, and favoring Muslim immigrants, mixing Euro-Arab populations by promoting multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe;
[6] develop a powerful Islamo-Christian symbiosis against Israel, orienting Europe toward Islam, and liberating Christianity from Judaism, which is viewed by some Antisemitic factions as the embodiment of evil
To achieve these ambitions European countries had to operate as one entity. Therefore, the first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. Each nation would abandon its autonomous foreign policies and forge a joint Euro-Arab policy. France was a driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians, including the former Mufti of Jerusalem, and Nazi-collaborator, Haj Amin al-Husseini.1
In the 1960s, nostalgic Nazi and fascist Antisemitic groups began strengthening ties with Arab countries engaged in bellicose actions to eliminate Israel. This pan-European and anti-American movement formed the nucleus of a European solidarity with Palestinian Arabs that became more assertive after 1967. It included fascist movements such as Jeune Europe, EuropaFront and Europe Réelle, the National Socialist Movement in England, the C. E. Carlberg Foundation in Stockholm, as well as centers in Malmö, Sweden, and other European cities, such as Strasbourg, Vienna, and Lausanne.
The 1973 oil crisis gave France and Germany a pretext to base the integrated Euro-Arab policy on the danger of an energy shortage, which they used to 1) forge a shared European energy policy on petroleum and 2) cement the European Community’s alliance with the Arab League countries in a common anti-American, anti-Israeli policy. Thus, the French-German duo used the 1973 oil crisis to justify their political reversal. The most tangible and immediate consequence of this alliance between the nine European Community countries and the 22 Arab League countries was the isolation and demonization of Israel.
Arab policy
The Arab States demanded from Europe:
1) alignment with their anti-Israeli policy;
2) modernization of their countries;
3) access to Western science and technology;
4) European political independence from the United States, and separation of the two blocks;
5) measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Arab and Islamic culture in Europe.
Commitments between the two parties were made with the Déclaration des Neuf sur le Moyen-Orient on 6 November 1973 in Brussels and the Summit of the Arab conference in Algeria for the Arab party on 28 November 1973. For the first time the European Nine adopted the French interpretation of UN Resolution 242 as establishing Israel’s borders on the 1949 armistice line, and including Palestinian rights in all Middle East peace negotiations.
These points were confirmed by the Déclaration des Neuf in London in 1977 and that same year at the UN in New York by the president in exercise of the Council of Europe, Henri Simonet, and again in the Venice Declaration in 1980. Other European Community more severe declarations would follow.
Institutional Structure
Clearly, a project that was so compromising for Europe could not be set forth in written documents and treaties; the Europeans chose the formula of “dialogue.” An institutional structure was devised to study all relevant questions, give directives, and design programs. All meetings, committees, and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions, with no official minutes. Sessions were jointly directed by two presidents, one European and the other Arab. This complicated structure implemented a policy of Euro-Arab association defined at the highest levels by the European Community and member States, hidden behind the inoffensive name, “Dialogue.”
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic, and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between the two parties. Its structure was set up at Conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). Ongoing operations are handled by various organs that define working themes and impose policy decisions made by the General Commission. The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The Association, which represents several hundred parliamentarians from all European parties, works to promote Arab interests and demands within each European party and Parliament, and in the European Council. The Association pressured European governments to adopt measures of exclusion and economic and academic boycotts of Israel. It is a powerful instrument of Arabic lobbying against Israel. The other principal organs of the Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute, the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission, and the MEDA program that manages substantial European funds allocated to Arab countries.
Modes of operation
Together these associations, committees and subcommittees ensure perfect coordination between the two parties in the political, economic, and cultural domains. In the political domain, the European Community stands apart from the United States by consistently backing Arab claims, and Palestinian policies, and stubbornly insisting on Arafat as the unique and exclusive representative of the Palestinians. European emissaries of the Dialogue have tried to bring the American government into line with Arab anti-Israeli positions.
The cultural committees formed Euro-Arab associations between universities, students, publishers, media syndicates including the press, television, radio, the arts, cinema, and NGOs. Exchange programs were organized for students and professors. At various symposia – like the Symposium of Venice (1977) or the Hamburg Symposium (1983) – decisions were made to promote the study and dissemination of Islam and the Arab language and civilization in European schools, universities and Euro-Arab cultural centers established throughout Europe. At the opening session in the Venice University’s great audience hall in Cà Dolphin, several personalities gave welcome speeches – including Ambassador Cesare Regard, the Italian representative to the European Group of coordination for the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The participants in this Seminar unanimously forward recommendations for consideration by the governments of the member states of the European Community and the League of Arab States, including:
1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe and to find the appropriate form of cooperation among the Arab institutions that operate in this field.
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals which will undertake the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture.
3. Encouragement of European institutions either at University level or other levels that are concerned with the teaching of the Arabic language and the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture.
4. Support of joint projects for cooperation between European and Arab institutions in the field of linguistic research and the teaching of the Arabic language to Europeans.
5. Necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans.
6. Necessity, when teaching Arabic, of emphasizing Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues.
7. Necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present an objective picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to students and to the educated public in Europe which could attract Europeans to Arabic studies.
These decisions were furthered in the Recommendations adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1991. Arab and Islamic anti-Israeli propaganda, barely disguised in academic and cultural packaging, was disseminated by organs of the EAD operating under the highest State authorities and imposed in universities, the press, and cultural centers. Dissidents, whether in religious, political or cultural circles, were marginalized or reduced to silence. These measures accompanied the influx of Arab immigration promoted as privileged and priority source of population growth in Europe.
Within this Europe transformed into a Euro-Arab continent hostile to the United States and Israel, transnational, transcontinental Judeophobia is structured in the fusion of two hatreds – European Antisemitism, and Arab-Muslim Judeophobia. This incendiary mixture formed the two pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance against both Israel and the United States. The dialogue committees condition European mentalities to the new cult of Palestinism. This ideology of hate melds Christian and Islamic Judeophobia, including the principles of replacement theology, expressed as both Christian, and finally Islamic supersessionism against Israel, which is condemned to disappear.
Themes
The themes of hatred that flourish in the fusion of Euro-Arab cultures on both shores of the Mediterranean were probably studied within these EAD committees and disseminated worldwide, since they are founded in Europe as well as the Arab world, and particularly among the Palestinians who cement this Christian-Muslim symbiosis against Israel. They are enunciated in common EAD declarations issued jointly by the European and the Arab parties associated at the highest state level in the EAD. The committees function under the strict authority of European Foreign Affairs ministers and heads of state, and European Council delegates, together with their colleagues on the Arab side.
The political themes include:
1. recognition of the Palestinians as a people; up to 1973 they had been known as Arab refugees;
2. recognition of the PLO and its leader Arafat as unique representative of the Palestinians;
3. obligation for Israel to negotiate exclusively with Arafat;
4. a global and not a separate peace;
5. retreat of Israel to the1949 armistice lines;
6. Arab-Islamic sovereignty in Jerusalem;
7. European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy;
8. demonization of Israel, a danger for world peace;
9. moralization of the Palestinian jihad as a just war against the injustice of Israel’s existence;
10. placing the Palestinian problem at the center of international politics.
11. delegitimization of Israel with all the negative characteristics that follow.
All of these themes, none of which are found in the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution Number 242, were developed by the European Community in crescendo from 1973 to 1980. Europe spoke incessantly for the “ legitimate inalienable rights of the Palestinians.” This phrase, borrowed from Arab League declarations, is repeated in every few lines of European statements mimicking their Arab models. We would seek in vain the definition of the rights of Kurds, Berbers, Copts or any other pre-Islamic indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East, including Jews- these peoples are never mentioned. The EAD committees imposed on Europe the cult of Palestinity based on the demonization and delegitimization of Israel, whose usurped history and identity are projected onto the Palestinians. Traditional European Antisemitism and Islamic jihad are fused within the structures and geopolitics of Euro-Arabism; in this process, European anti-Americanism and Judeophobia come together within the Euro-Arab ideology. The Arab genocidal policy, which benefits from European Union support, guidance, and financing, is an international geostrategic force. Today we must abandon the usual framework of traditional Antisemitism and study Judeophobia in this new Euro-Arab context.
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe’s foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership. How should his words be interpreted? Suddenly the diffuse Israelophobia in the media, the universities, and policy declarations reached a paroxysm in harmony with the Arab world. Europe was inflamed with the cult of Palestinity and its frantic hatred of Israel in the press, media, and universities. This Judeophobic prejudice reminiscent of the 1930s, encouraged Palestinian terrorism in Israel and attacks against Jews in Europe, revealing that Antisemitic networks exist which can be activated or repressed by governments. The aim of this paroxysm of Judeophobia was to use terror and intimidation to detach Diaspora Jews from the State of Israel, leaving Israel even more isolated.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue comprises many different aspects and determines complex policies with respect to the United States, Europe, Israel and Arab countries. Europe’s hidden war against Israel is wrapped in the Palestinian flag, and is part of a global movement that is transforming Europe into a new continent of dhimmitude within a worldwide strategy of jihad and da’wa, the latter being the pacific method of Islamization. The implementation program of this policy of dhimmitude for the Euro-Arabian continent is set forth in the Rapport du Comité des Sages submitted to European Commission president Romano Prodi in October 2003. This program, entitled “Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean region” was accepted by the European Union in December 2003. Unfortunately, the policy of “Dialogue” with the Arab League nations, willfully pursued by Europe for the past three decades, has promoted European dhimmitude and rabid Judeophobia.
Notes:
1. Henry Laurent, "Le Mufti et la France de la IVe République", in Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes, Paris, automn 2001, n° 81:.70-87; Lukacs Hirszowicz, The Third Reich and the Arab East, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul/Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966; Zvi Elpeleg, The Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement, London/Portland, OR, 1993.
Translated from the French by Nidra Poller, and presented, in part, at The World Conference on Global Antisemitism, Montreal, Canada March 15, 2004.
Bat Ye'or (www.dhimmitude.org ) is the author most recently of Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, and the forthcoming Eurabia.
Beyond Munich – The Spirit of Eurabia
Beyond Munich – The Spirit of Eurabia
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 2, 2004
The following presentation by Bat Ye'or was delivered at a seminar in the French Senate in Paris three weeks ago - The Editors.
*
Allow me first to make a preliminary observation about the title of this session: the ‘return of the spirit of Munich’ – a title which I find somewhat optimistic. At Munich, in 1938, France and England, exhausted by the death toll of the Great War, abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazi beast, in the hope that by doing so they would avoid another conflict. The “spirit of Munich” thus refers to a policy of states and of peoples who refuse to confront a threat, and attempt to obtain peace and security through conciliation and appeasement, or even, for some, an active collaboration with the criminals.
For my own part, I would say that we have gone beyond the spirit of Munich, and the present situation should be seen not in the context of the Second World War, but in the present jihadist context.
In fact, for the past 30 years France and Europe are living in a situation of passive self-defense against terrorism. This began with Palestinian terrorism, then Islamic terrorism, not to speak of the local European terrorism, including the IRA in Great Britain, ETA in Spain, the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy.
One need only look at our cities, airports, and streets, at the schools with their security guards, even the systems of public transportation, not to mention the embassies, and the synagogues – to see the whole astonishing array of police and security services. The fact that the authorities everywhere refuse to name the evil does not negate that evil. Yet we know perfectly well that we have been under threat for a long time; one has only to open one’s eyes and our authorities know it better than any of us, because it is they who have ordered these very security measures.
In his book, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Médiévale sous Domination Arabe (Daily Life in Medieval Europe under the Arab Domination), published in 1978, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourq, a French specialist on Andalusia (Islamic Spain) and the Maghreb, described under the subheading “Une grande Peur” (“A great Fear”) the conditions of life for the indigenous non-Muslim peoples in the Andalusian countryside. (1) Today, Europe itself is living with this Great Fear.
At Munich war had not yet been declared. Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war’s reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004. If there is a danger as Europe proclaims urbi et orbi, that danger can only come from America and Israel. What should one understand? For can anyone seriously maintain that it is the American and Israeli forces that threaten us in Europe? No, what must be understood is that American and Israeli policies of resistance to jihadist terror provoke reprisals against a Europe that has long ago ceased to defend itself. So that peace can prevail throughout the world, those two countries, America and Israel, need only adopt the European strategy of constant surrender, based on the denial of aggression. How simple it all is…
This strategy is less worthy than even Munich’s connivance and cowardice. At Munich there was some sort of future contemplated, even if war, or peace, were to determine the future. There was a choice. In the present situation there is no choice, for we deny the reality of the jihad danger. The only danger comes, allegedly, from the United States and Israel. We conduct a propaganda campaign in the media against these two countries, before entering into a yet more aggressive phase; it’s so much easier, so much less dangerous…And we conduct this campaign with the weapons of cowardice: defamation, misinformation, the corruption of venal politicians.
In the time of Munich, one could envisage that there would be battles that might be won. There was at least the Maginot Line for defense. In Europe today, dominated by the spirit of dhimmitude – the condition of submission of Jews and Christians under Muslim domination – there is no conceivable battle. Submission, without a fight, has already taken place. A machinery that has made Europe the new continent of dhimmitude was put into motion more than 30 years ago at the instigation of France.
A wide-ranging policy was then first sketched out, a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries, that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States (2). This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, outside of official treaties, under the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. An association of European parliamentarians from the European Economic Community (EEC) was created in 1974 in Paris: the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation. It was entrusted with managing all of the aspects of Euro-Arab relations – financial, political, economic, cultural, and those pertaining to immigration. This organization functioned under the auspices of the European heads of government and their foreign ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission, and the Arab League.
This strategy, the goal of which was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean Euro-Arab entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods, also determined the immigration policy with regard to Arabs in the European Community (EC). And, for the past 30 years, it also established the relevant cultural policies in the schools and universities of the EC. Since the first Cairo meeting of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in 1975, attended by the ministers and heads of state both from European and Arab countries and by representatives of the EC and the Arab League, agreements have been concluded concerning the diffusion and the promotion in Europe of Islam, of the Arabic language and culture, through the creation of Arab cultural centers in European cities. Other accords soon followed, all intended to ensure a cultural, economic, political Euro-Arab symbiosis. These far ranging efforts involved the universities and the media (both written and audio-visual), and even included the transfer of technologies, including nuclear technology. Finally a Euro-Arab associative diplomacy was promoted in international forums, especially at the United Nations.
The Arabs set the conditions for this association: 1) a European policy that would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States; 2) the recognition by Europe of a “Palestinian people,” and the creation of a “Palestinian” state; 3) European support for the PLO; 4) the designation of Arafat as the sole and exclusive representative of that “Palestinian people”; 5) the de-legitimizing of the State of Israel, both historically and politically, its shrinking into non viable borders, and the Arabization of Jerusalem. From this sprang the hidden European war against Israel, through economic boycotts, and in some cases academic boycotts as well, through deliberate vilification, and the spreading of both anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
During the past three decades a considerable number of non-official agreements between the countries of the CEE (subsequently the EU) on the one hand, and the countries of the Arab League on the other, determined the evolution of Europe in its current political and cultural aspects. I will cite here only four of them: 1) it was understood that those Europeans who would be dealing with Arab immigrants would undergo special sensitivity training, in order to better appreciate their customs, their moeurs; 2) the Arab immigrants would remain under the control and the laws of their countries of origin; 3) history textbooks in Europe would be rewritten by joint teams of European and Arab historians – naturally the Battles of Poitiers and Lepanto, or the Spanish Reconquista did not possess the same significance on both Mediterranean littorals; 4) the teaching of the Arabic language and of Arab and Islamic culture were to be taught, in the schools and universities of Europe, by Arab teachers experienced in teaching Europeans.
The Situation Today
On the political front, Europe has tied its destiny to the Arab countries, and thus become involved in the logic of jihad against Israel and the United States. How could Europe denounce the culture of jihadic venom which exudes from its allies, while for so many years it did everything to activate the jihad by hiding and justifying it by claiming that the real danger comes not from the jihadists, themselves, but from those who resist the Arab jihadist, the very allies that Europe serves at every international gathering, and in the European media.
On the cultural front, there has been a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, through the creation of a ‘Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations’ that was to control everything that was said, written and taught on the new continent of Eurabia, which encompass Europe and the Arab countries.
The dhimmitude of Europe began with the subversion of its culture and its values, with the destruction of its history and its replacement by an Islamic vision of that history, supported by the romantic myth of Andalusia. Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a ‘just war’. Those who resist the jihad, like the Israelis and the Americans, are the guilty ones, rather than those who wage it. It is this policy that has inculcated in us, the Europeans, the spirit of dhimmitude that blinds us, that instills in us a hatred for our own values, and the wish to destroy our own origins and our own history. “The greatest intellectual swindle would be to allow Europe to continue to believe that it derives from a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a complete lie,” Tariq Ramadan has stated (3). And thus we despise George Bush because he still believes in that tradition. What simpletons those Americans…
The spirit of dhimmitude is not merely that of submission without fighting, not even a surrender. It is also the denial of one’s own humiliation through this process of integrating values that lead to our own destruction; it is the ideological mercenaries offering themselves up for service in the jihad; it is the traditional tribute paid by their own hand, and with humiliation, by the European dhimmis, in order to obtain a false security; it is the betrayal of one’s own people. The non-Muslim protected dhimmi under Islamic rule could obtain an ephemeral and delusive security through services rendered to the Muslim oppressor, and through servility and flattery. And that is precisely the situation in Europe today.
Dhimmitude is not only a set of abstract laws inscribed in the shari’a, it is also a complex set of behaviors developed over time by the dhimmis themselves, as a way both to adapt to, and to survive, oppression, humiliation, insecurity. This has produced a particular mentality as well as social and political behaviors essential to the survival of peoples who, in a certain sense, would always remain hostages to the Islamic system.
The dhimmis are inferior beings who undergo humiliations and aggressions in silence. Their aggressors, meanwhile, enjoy an impunity that only increases their hatred and their feeling of superiority, guaranteed by the protection of the law. The culture of dhimmitude which is expanding throughout Europe is that of hate, of crimes against non-Muslims that go unpunished, a culture which is imported from the Arab countries along with “Palestinianism,” the new European subculture that has been raised to the level of a European Union cult, and its exalted war banner against Israel.
At Munich, in 1938, France had not renounced its own culture, its own history becoming German; it has not proclaimed that the source of her own culture was the German civilization. The spirit of dhimmitude which today blinds Europe springs not from a situation imposed from without, but from a choice made freely, and systematically carried out, in its political dimensions, over the course of the last 30 years.
The well-known scholar of Islam, William Montgomery Watt, described the disappearance of the Christian world from the countries which had been Islamized, in his book The Majesty that was Islam (1974): “There was nothing dramatic about what happened; it was a gentle death, a phasing out.”(4) But Montgomery Watt was wrong; in fact, the long death-throes of Christianity under Islam were extremely painful and tragic, as can be seen even in the 20th century, with the genocide of the Armenians, and the Lebanese Christians’ resistance in the 1970s-1980s, and for the last decades the genocide in the Sudan, and finally the relentless Arab jihad against Israel, which is only one of the examples of the age-old struggle by people devoted to fighting for freedom against dhimmitude, for the dignity of man against the slavery of oppression and hate. But that observation by Montgomery Watt – about the “gentle death, the phasing out” applies perfectly to Europe today.
Notes:
1) Charles-Emmanuel Dufourq, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Médiévale sous Domination Arabe, Hachette, Paris, 1978; this book examines the Arab conquest and colonization of Andalusia — see chapter 1, “Les Jours de Razzia et d’Invasion”. I am grateful to Dr Andrew Bostom, for having brought to my attention the works of Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, some of which will be included in his forthcoming compendium of essays and documents, The Legacy of Jihad, New York, Prometheus Books, 2005.
2) Pierre Lyautey (the nephew of Marshall Lyautey): “) « Le nouveau rôle de la France en Orient », Comptes rendu des séances de l’Académie des Sciences d’Outre-Mer, 4 mai 1962, p.176, voir aussi Jacques Frémeaux, Le monde arabe et la sécurité de la France depuis 1958, PUF, Paris 1995.
3) Tariq Ramadan, “Critique des (nouveaux) intellectuels communautaires”, Oumma.com, 3 October 2003.
4) William Montgomery Watt, The Majesty that Was Islam. The Islamic World, 66-1100. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1974, p. 257.
* Bat Ye’or has written articles and scholarly studies since 1971 on the situation of Jews and Christians under Islam. Her books in French have been translated into English (www.dhimmi.org / www.dhimmitude.org). This presentation – translated from the French – was given at a seminar organized by the B’nai B’rith (Europe) in the French Senate (Palais du Luxembourg, Paris), on the theme: “La démocratie à l’épreuve de la menace islamiste” (“Democracy faced with the Islamist menace”), in two sessions: “Les Islamistes et leur alliés” (“The Islamists and their allies”); “Vers un retour à l’esprit de Munich” (“Toward a return to the spirit of Munich”). Her next book covers this subject in depth: Eurabia. The Euro-Arab Axis (Cranbury, NJ., Associated University Presses, 2005). This recent presentation, “Beyond Munich – The Spirit of Eurabia,” along with many other pieces by Bat Ye’or and others, will appear in the essay collection, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (forthcoming from Prometheus Books), edited by Robert Spencer.
How Europe Became Eurabia
How Europe Became Eurabia
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2004
Last Tuesday, the 25 nations of the European Union (EU) voted unanimously to support a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel’s defensive fence (ignoring that this barrier was constructed to keep jihadist murderers from entering the nation via Judea and Samaria). The EU’s craven, morally bankrupt stance was sadly consistent with Eurabian policies evident now for three decades. In fact, the EU has been completing a slow metamorphasis into the "Christian" arm of the Pan-Arab world, different in religious observation (or lack of same) but united in its views of Israel and America.
The European Community (EC), and later the EU, has been aligned with Arab policy regarding Israel and the United States since its June 1977 declaration. Disruption of the Western alliance by separating Europe from America, and the piecemeal destruction of Israel were the pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance that gave birth to Eurabia. The formation of this tactical alliance can be traced clearly to a document issued 24 years ago. Prompted by fears of Khomeini's Shi’ite theocracy in Iran, international Arab terrorism and the rise of oil prices, the EC adopted the 1980 Venice Declaration. This declaration made clear that the EC, under French leadership, had adopted Pan-Arab conditions regarding Israel without qualification, including: the 1949 armistice as Israel’s legitimate borders; Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem; an Arab Palestinian state; the recognition of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians, as well as its participation in all negotiations, and the obligation of Israel to negotiate with Arafat, exclusively; and the refusal to recognize a separate peace between Israel and any Arab country, for the resolution of the "Palestinian problem." By adopting all those conditions (which contradicted UN Resolution 242) Europeans could in turn justify their ahistorical designation of Judea and Samaria as occupied Arab land. Ultimately, the entire European effort to delegitimize and vilify Israel hinges upon this inaccurate, disingenuous formulation. In the 1970s and 80s, the Communist bloc and the burgeoning Euro-Arab alliance granted international legitimacy to the denial of Israel’s rights by the PLO. France, and to a lesser extent Germany, directed the entire European Community foreign policy in accord with Arab-Islamic sentiments. A careful reading of the Venice Declaration (1980), the Fez Islamic Conference (1980), the Amman Arab Summit (1980), and the Taif-Mecca Islamic Summit (1981) reveals the similarities between the European and Arab positions in relation to Israel. Europe’s modified wording is just a fig-leaf.
This subterfuge allows the EU to pose as a “neutral” agent between Israel and the Arab world and to retain a role in the peace-for-terrorists-process. At the Durban circus in September 2001, European representatives tried in vain to conceal the anti-American and anti-Semitic animus that permeates Eurabian policies, most visibly through the collusion of Eurabian and Arab NGOs. And again, during the recently completed International Court of Justice proceedings in The Hague, Eurabian judges employed similar tactics but joined their colleagues from the Muslim world in finding Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier “illegal” (and thus denying the Jewish state its legal right to self-defense).
Beyond a fleeting awareness, the overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans do not understand the new Eurabian entity, which only the first step in a steady progression toward its Arabization and Islamization. Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a "civilization of dhimmitude," i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.
This evolution of Europe has been duplicated internally within every EU country. This deliberate, comprehensive process has taken place through several means: the control of Middle Eastern Studies departments at European universities, and the re-writing of historical textbooks; allowing Euro-Arab bodies to screen cultural exchanges and publications relating to Islam and the Arab Muslim world for unwelcome content; taboos imposed on issues related to immigration and Islam; disinformation campaigns demonizing Israel (and America), while fostering a comprehensive and “brotherly” alliance between EU and Arab League countries on the political, economic, cultural, and social levels; and the servile obedience of the EU's mainstream media to all these initiatives.
Most recently, this program of Euro-Arab symbiosis has been codified in a detailed report entitled, “Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area.” Released last October, this report (whose contributors included Umberto Eco and Tariq Ramadan) was to establish complete interdependence between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, established the High-Level Advisory Group which stated the aims, policies, and routine functions of the foundation. The Advisory Group mandated that the foundation have complete financial and administrative independence in managing its budget and in choosing its partners. In support of this remarkable request, the Advisory Group argued that the foundation needed considerable resources to cover its activities that would be extraordinarily expensive, as they will encompass all the countries of the EU. The Advisory Group further justified such conditions by invoking its lofty aim, which “is nothing less than peace itself.” And this “peace” -- accomplished through “brotherly love” and “dialogue” between the North and the South of the Mediterranean -- will be achieved by a total economic, political, and cultural fusion.
This May (2004), the EU followed this report up by accepting the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, named after Anna Lindh, the Swedish minister murdered by a deranged man. Lindh was a staunch defender of Arafat and advocated an economic boycott of Israel by the EU, a policy long desired by Eurabian politicians. Not surprisingly, the Anna Lindh Foundation draws inspiration from the spirit of Edward Said, the late dhimmi ideologue bent upon subverting Western culture, and values. The Anna Lindh Foundation endeavors to fight what it dubs “Fortress Europe” on Arab immigration issues, and to establish a totalitarian academic structure which alone will be entitled to teach and publish material on the Euro-Arab Mediterranean. It will also monitor the texbooks and university curricula for all of the EU. Moreover, the Foundation promotes the vision of a unified Euro-Mediterranean world where people are not even defined as being from the North or the South, (terms considered too provocative as they might evoke visions of a once-Christian North and a very Muslim South). The Euro-Arab continent will instead be populated by an amorphous mass called only “Us,” without acknowledged ethnic, national, or religious features. In reality, Europe is creating a gigantic Muslim community, or “umma,” which is also inhabited by an anonymous (and precipitously dying) European dhimmi population.
One can choose to ignore it, but Eurabia is a tangible entity. Eurabia has a discernible historical development, and its functionaries are now well entrenched in each European parliament, and at the head of the European Commission. Often Javier Solana merely parrots the Arab League's Amr Moussa, or the Palestinian Authority's Yasser Arafat. Hence Solana's parrots the pan-Arab refrain that no reforms can be achieved in any Muslim country before the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reiterating the same fatuous statements made by Amr Moussa. The EU continues to proclaim that all negotiations must be conducted with Arafat alone and that the Middle East conflict is at the center of world politics. Those two assertions were repeated endlessly at the Fez, Amman, and Taif Summits (1980-81). The EU’s unlimited funds finance anti-Israeli and anti-American campaigns, as well as the "dialogue" industry. Regarding Israel in particular, it appears as if the EU has become the obsequious mouthpiece of the Arab League.
This Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian janissary slave-soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy. Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel. Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities. Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization. Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people. Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.
Eurabia
Eurabia
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 21, 2004
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Bat Ye'or, the world's foremost authority on dhimmitude.
Her latest study is Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide. Her forthcoming book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, will be published in January 2005.
FP: Bat Ye'or, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Bat Ye'or: Thanks for inviting me to your prestigious magazine.
FP: First things first, can you explain the term "Eurabia" to our readers?
Bat Ye'or: Eurabia represents a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC)which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries. The alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each EC country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab homologues with the Arab League's delegate. This system was synchronised under the roof of an association called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created in July 1974 in Paris. A working body composed of committees and always presided jointly by a European and an Arab delegate planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of the decisions.
The field of Euro-Arab collaboration covered every domain: from economy and policy to immigration. In foreign policy, it backed anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism and Israel's delegitimization; the promotion of the PLO and Arafat; a Euro-Arab associative diplomacy in international forums; and NGO collaboration. In domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.
Eurabia is the future of Europe. Its driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members -- from all major European political parties -- active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. The creation of this body and its policy follow the 23 resolutions of the "Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples", held in Cairo in January 1969. Its resolution 15 formulates the Euro-Arab policy and its all-embracing development over thirty years in European domestic and foreign policy.
It stated: "The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." In the 1970s, pursuant to the wishes of the Cairo Conference, national groups proclaiming "Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance and the Arab peoples" appeared throughout Europe. These groups belonged to different political families, Gaullists, extreme left or right, communists, neo-Nazis -- but they all shared the same anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. France has been the key protagonist of this policy, ever since de Gaulle's press conference on 27 November 1967 when he presented France's cooperation with the Arab world as "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy".
FP: Is Europe's dependence on Arab oil a predominant factor in its pro-Arab policy?
Bat Ye'or: No, I don't think so. Arab leaders have to sell their oil; their people are very dependent on European economic, health and technological aid. America made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. The oil factor is a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis. The policy was already conceived in the 1960s. It has strong antecedents in the French 19th century dream of governing an Arab empire and the exploitation of antisemitism to strengthen Arab Muslim-French solidarity against a demonized common enemy. Eurabia is not only a web of various agreements covering every field. It is essentially a political project for a total demographic and cultural symbiosis between Europe and the Arab world, where Israel will eventually dissolve. America would be isolated and challenged by an emerging Euro-Arab continent that is linked to the whole Muslim world and invested with tremendous political and economic power in international affairs. The policies of "multilateralism" and "soft diplomacy" express this deepening symbiosis. The Euro-Arab agreements are merely the tools for the creation of this new "continent." Eurabia is also based on the vision of Christian-Muslim reconciliation and has been strongly advocated by religious Christian bodies.
FP: For a moment, France looked like it was totally lost. But it seems to have adopted a new foreign policy, more oriented toward Europe. What is your view of this?
Bat Ye'or: France and the rest of Western Europe cannot change their policy anymore. Their future is Eurabia. Period. I don't see how they can reverse the movement they set in motion thirty years ago. Nor do Eurabians want to modify this policy. It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it. This is the source of the strong anti-American feeling in Europe and of the paranoiac obsession with Israel, two elements that form the cornerstone of Eurabia. The new French orientation toward Europe indicates that France will work within Europe, and particularly with the new Eastern member states of the European Union, to convince them to forgo their Atlanticist vision and reorient their alliances toward the Arab Muslim world. This was French policy in the 1960s when Paris became the advocate of the Arab cause in the European Community. Until 1971, France had been isolated in the EC in its anti-Israel stance. European Community critics accused it of bias toward the Arab world. Faced with the oil crisis, the nine EC countries -- under French and German leadership -- unified their views regarding the Middle East conflict and this generated the Euro-Arab Dialogue's overall development.
FP: Tell us about the Prodi project where Tariq Ramadan and others have collaborated.
Bat Ye'or: Prodi's project is the fulfillment of Eurabia. It is called the "Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area."
It was requested by Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, and accepted at the Sixth Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers in Naples on 2-3 December 2003. It represents a strategy for closer Euro-Arab symbiosis to be implemented by a Foundation that will control, direct and monitor it. Last May the European ministers of foreign affairs accepted the creation of the Anna Lindh Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures with its seat in Alexandria, Egypt. Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, murdered by an insane man, was a key advocate of the Palestinian cause and the boycott of Israel. Lindh was known for her criticism of Israeli and American policies of self-defense against terror. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was a close friend, calling her a "true European."
The Foundation will endeavor through numerous means to reinforce links of mutuality, solidarity and "togetherness" between the Northern and Southern shores of the Mediterranean, that is, Europe and the Arab countries. The authors of the project carefully avoid such characterizations since -- in the spirit of Edward Said -- they are judged anathema and racist. This is explained in the report's text, but I use them for clarification. It is the Eurabian context, representing a totally anti-American and anti-Zionist culture and policy, that explains the strong reaction against the war in Iraq -- itself integrated into the war against Islamic terrorism. A terrorism that Eurabia has denied, blaming Israel's "injustice and occupation" and America's "arrogance" instead. Eurabia has transformed Islamic terrorism into a cliche: "America is the problem" in order to consolidate the web of alliances that support its whole geostrategy.
FP: What is the significance of Solana's declaration?
Bat Ye'or: Solana is strongly implicated in the EU Arabophile and pro-Palestinian policy conducted intensively under Prodi as a European self-protective reaction to the American war against terror. If one examines the EC/EU declarations since 1977 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, one notices that they espouse Arab League decisions and positions: the 1949 armistice lines imposed on Israel, although never recognized as international boundaries; the creation on those boundaries of a Palestinian state not mentioned by UN resolution 242; the acknowledgement of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and of Arafat as its leader, with the obligation for Israel to negotiate exclusively with him; and initially the refusal of separate peace treaties. The EU adopted all these Arab League requests as well as repeated threats of economic and cultural boycott against Israel, constantly demanded by the Europeans' close Arab allies and their powerful lobby, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation. On 3 March 2004, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, when asked about U.S. proposals to requested democratic reforms in Arab states, declared:
"The peace process always has to be at the center of whatever initiative is in the field. . . Any idea about (reform of) nations would have to be in parallel with putting a priority on the resolution of the peace process, otherwise it will be very difficult to have success." (Reuters, "Solana: Mideast peace vital for Arab reforms"; see also Neil MacFarquhar "Arab states start plan of their own Mideast", International Herald Tribune, March 4, 2004.)
Solana just repeated the opinion of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after his meeting with him. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa shared this opinion and refused to consider any reforms in Arab countries before the settlement of the Arab-Palestinian conflict, a settlement whose overall conditions imply Israel's destruction. Hence, any democratization and change of Arab societies demanded by the West are linked by the Arabs to its participation in Israel's demise. This link was rejected by Senior U.S. State Department official Marc Grossman when visiting Cairo on 2 March 2004. He said that the democracy plan should not depend on a settlement of the Middle East conflict. But Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, answered him:
"Egypt's position is that one of the basic obstacles to the reform process is the continuation of Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the Arab people."
According to Reuters, Amr Moussa, speaking at the opening session of a regular ministerial meeting, declared:
"The Palestinian cause...is the key to stability or instability in the region, and this issue will continue to influence in all its elements the development of the Arab region until a just solution is reached."
Eurabian notables, whether Chirac, de Villepin, Solana, Prodi, or others, have continuously stressed the centrality of the Palestinian cause for world peace, as if more European vilification of Israel would change anything in the global jihad waged in the US, in Asia, and from Africa to Chechnya the latest horrendous tragedy in Ossetia is but one example. In such a view, Israel's very existence, not this genocidal jihadist drive, is a threat to peace. The Euro-Arab linkage of Arab/Islamic reforms to Israel's stand is spurious and only demonstrates, once more, Europe's subservience to Arab policy. Numerous Arab and Islamic Summits have imposed the centrality of their Palestinian policy on the world and requested that all political problems should be subordinated to it. The EU likewise.
FP: You often refer to a Euro-Arab Palestinian cult. What do you mean by it?
Bat Ye'or: It means precisely this Palestinian centrality that's promoted in Europe as a key to world peace. However, the Euro-Arab Palestinian cult goes much deeper than a political tool used for a Euro-Arab Partnership policy against America and Israel. It is linked to theological currents of Judeophobia and a replacement theology based on the Palestinization of the Bible and the rejection of its Jewish roots in order to delegitimize Israel's history and rights on its land. The Euro-Arab Palestinian cult symbolized the redemption of Christianity and Islam and their reconciliation on the ashes of Israel, the work of Satan -- a belief propagated by the media's continuous demonization of Israel, and Palestinian victimization. This cult brings together neo-Nazis, Judeophobes, anti-Americans, communists and jihadists. It is a revival of Nazi anti-Jewish and anti-Christian trends, particularly in its hatred of Christian Bible believers and America, the country that was determinant in the defeat of Nazism and Communism. In the 1930-40s, the Nazis had strong links with Palestinians, and those sympathies and alliances continued throughout the years after World War II, thriving in the Euro-Arab Palestinian cult that submerged Western Europe under the umbrella of the gigantic Euro-Arab Dialogue apparatus.
FP: But what does the public in Europe think about their Eurabian future? Are they aware of it? Do they go along with it?
Bat Ye'or: The public ignores this strategy, its details and functioning, but there is a strong awareness, anxiety and discontent over the current situation and particularly the antisemitic trends. This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the top political level and coordinated over the whole EU, spreading an anti-American and antisemitic Euro-Arab sub-culture in every social, media and cultural sector. Oriana Fallaci has given voice to this general opposition. But there are also many others. They are boycotted, sometimes fired from their jobs, victims of a type of totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.
FP: What have you to say about the French journalists taken hostage and France's reactions?
Bat Ye'or: Chirac hoped that they would be liberated as a favor to French Arabophile and pro-Palestinian militancy, a dhimmi service for Arab policy that deserves a favor not granted to others. This tragedy has revealed France's good relations with terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others. It has also uncovered France's dependency on its considerable Muslim population for its home and foreign policies, as it appeared earlier that their advocacy would determine the liberation of the hostages. But the incredible conditions subsequently put by the terrorists prove that Islamist terrorists apply the same rules to all infidels. It also demonstrates the inanity of a policy of collusion and denial that has always whitewashed Islamic terrorism to avoid confronting it and has constantly transferred its evils onto its victims.
France's situation illustrates, in fact, what threatens the whole of Europe through its demographic and political integration within the Arab-Muslim world, as promoted now by the Anna Lindh Foundation. France with Belgium, Germany and perhaps Spain is ahead of the rest of Europe. Britain, Italy and to some extent the East European countries are less marked by the subservience syndrome of dhimmitude which consists in submission and compliance to Muslim policy or face jihad and death. Dhimmitude is linked to the jihad ideology and sharia rules pertaining to infidels and represents the complex historical process of Islamization of the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu civilizations across three continents.
America has the choice of forgoing its liberty and adopting the European line of dhimmitude and supplication, or maintaining its resolve to fight the war against terrorism for freedom and for universal human rights values.
FP: John Kerry has stated repeatedly that he will 'rebuild alliances' with Europe, which he maintains President Bush has disrupted, particularly with nations such as France and Germany. Can you discuss how your scholarship on 'Eurabia' may affect the validity of this claim by Senator Kerry?
Bat Ye'or: Anti-Americanism was very popular from the late 1960s onward, when European communist and extreme-leftist parties then represented powerful political forces. It was a decisive factor in the Gaullist pursuance of a strong united Europe, and a major and essential pillar of the Euro-Arab policy and alliances in the 1970s. De Gaulle opposed Britain's participation in the European Community in 1961 and 1967 because of its Atlantic leanings. The Euro-Arab Dialogue construct, which determined the whole European policy toward the Arab-Muslim world, was basically anti-American already in the 1970s. Europe is a sinking continent and the rebuilding of alliances will be at the price of America's security and freedom.
The violent European anti-Bush trends are linked to a European internal situation. Bush's declared war on Islamic terrorism unveiled a reality carefully hidden in Europe and has exposed its extreme fragility -- a situation that was compensated by an explosion of anti-Americanism and antisemitism organized by Eurabian networks. Senator Kerry's declaration is inaccurate given the Euro-American context of cultural, political and economic rivalries preceding Bush's election, and especially the emergence of a new and complex situation that the European and American public have not yet fully understood. This is the threat of a global jihad, with its ideology, strategy and tactics, coordinated with its cells worldwide. The difference between Europe and America is that Europe denies it because it cannot nor does it wish to fight for certain values already forfeited. We see here the collision of two radically opposed strategies.
FP: Is there any optimism that we can have for Europe? How about to win this war against Islamism?
Bat Ye'or: Maybe the recent developments revealing France's failed policy and the horrendous ordeals of children and parents in Ossetia will induce Europeans to bring their politicians and media to accountability. The war against a global jihadist terrorism can be won only if the civilized world is united against barbarity. Until now European democracies supported Arafat, the initiator of jihadist terrorism, hostage-taking and Islamikazes. The war will be won if we name it, if we face it, if we recognize that it obeys specific rules of Islamic war that are not ours; and if democracies and Muslim modernists stop justifying these acts against other countries. The policy of collusion and support for terrorists in order to gain self-protection is a delusion.
FP: Bat Ye'or, thank you, our time is up. We'll see you soon.
Bat Ye'or: Thank you Jamie.
Arafat`s Legacy for Europe
Arafat’s Legacy for Europe
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 16, 2004
On October 29, 2004, just before the U.S. presidential election, Osama bin Laden delivered a taped speech that confirmed the jihadist strategy. His declaration “Any US state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security," epitomizes the Palestinian terror threat to Europe in the 1970s. It is precisely this threat that has engineered a Euro-Arab and Palestinian solidarity. It has fueled the frantic European devotion to Arafat and Europe’s neurotic insistence that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the prime danger to its own security and world peace. This fear motivates the European countries’ adamant refusal to recognize Palestinian terrorism and to fight it. Instead, Europeans, in the tradition of dhimmitude, purchased their security by devising an alliance with the Arab League and the PLO against Israel.
With George Bush’s re-election, Tony Blair is under ever stronger pressure from his own Labor party and from a traumatized Europe eager to get at Israel as a quid pro quo for the war in Iraq, while promising a deceitful Euro-American rapprochement. Like it or not, Americans must face a new reality: Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian secular and free civilization to a continent imbibed by a new political and religious cult: Palestinianism. This cult is vital for Europe’s security; it permeates the culture, academia, universities, the churches, the unions, the media, even the fashion industry, and all aspects of political life. For over thirty years, it has been injected in every sector of European society by the European Commission's supra-national power and unifying policy. The European Commission is the executive body that advises, directs, influences and monitors the same unique agenda, the same ideology, the same political correctness over all the European populations. It strives to control Europe’s foreign policy, and model Europe as a rival to America. This anti-American lust for power can only be implemented through the building of an idealized “Islamo-Christian Civilization,” the dawn of a messianic universal peace whose blessing over the whole world is impeded by Zionism and Israel. Islamic assistance is essential for building this European anti-American super-power, initially via Palestinianism, the ideology which foments Israel's elimination.
Palestinianism condenses jihadist values. It promotes the destruction of Israel, the denial of Hebrew biblical history and hence Christianity. It preaches Islamic replacement theology and the Arabization and Islamization of the Holy Land’s biblical archeology. Arafat, its leader, was the bin Laden of a seduced Europe, which applauded his policy of spectacular terrorism. It is Arafat who initiated in 1968 air piracy against Jews, hostage ransoming, suicide bombings, random killings of civilians and the destruction of urban areas as in Lebanon. In short, the current global terror campaign was successfully introduced first by Arafat against Jews and Israelis, as well as Lebanese Christians.
More than Hitler before him, Arafat became the most popular hero in Europe, cradle of Palestinianism, concocted by the second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples (Cairo, 25-26 January 1969), as an international strategic war against Israel, and conducted through today. The Conference’s Sponsoring Committee of 54 members comprised 46 influential European intellectuals and politicians. Palestinianism as an ideology bringing together Europe and the Arab countries on the ashes of Israel was conceived and planned in Europe with unofficial Gaullist benediction, and Arafat was its embodiment.
France’s love affair with Arafat became a European state policy after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, although some European leaders had already been convinced of Arafat’s “just cause” by earlier PLO air piracy and terrorist murders (December 1971 London; in 1972 Cologne, Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt, Brussels, Lod, and in February 1973, Khartoum). Such terrorist achievements brought the opening in European capitals of PLO offices, following the French example in 1975. The unshakable European-Arafat alliance was sealed by the Venice Declaration (1980) when Arafat was recognized as leader of the PLO, the only representative of the Palestinian people, and Israel was summoned by the European Community to negotiate only with him.
For years the European countries have joined the 56 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to promote Palestinianism in the international bodies as a world warfare against Israel waged by its leader Arafat whom they supported. This war was officially stated at the 1980 Fez Islamic Conference and at the Amman Arab Summit, soon after the Venice Declaration. It was re-emphasized at the Mecca-Taif Islamic Summit (January 1981). Those august bodies showered thanks on the Vatican and the World Council of Churches for their invaluable support to Palestinianism. The red-green alliance was then strengthened in the Amman Arab Summit Declaration (November 1980). In this marriage the Muslim trend, confident in its divine mission and fed by unlimited funds, overwhelmed its faithless, leftist European partner. The latter, weakened by Communism’s collapse, is now rejuvenated as the antisemitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American conveyor of Islamization in Europe.
The cohorts of European foreign ministers rushing to Arafat’s commemoration ceremony in Cairo, signals that Palestinianism – Europe’s war against Israel – will not die with Arafat, having been generated from Europe’s most persistent hate impulse. Had it not existed, peace would have prevailed. But peace was never the goal. The goal was Israel’s suffering, bleeding, isolation, demonization, vilification and robbery of its identity and history through Palestinianism.
This is why European chief diplomats hastened to laud Arafat, a terrorist whose protection they bought with billions of euros, much of which disappeared through corruption. The glorification of such a war-criminal, who indulged in the massacres of thousand of Israelis and others innocent civilians, insults basic human ethics and the memory of his countless victims, Jews and non-Jews alike. Already the Euro-Arab lobby of the powerful replacement theology models Arafat as a Moses, or even Jesus, casting the Arafatian cult into the Palestinian Liberation Theology. After the failure of the Communist, Nazi, and fascist ideologies in blood and mass massacres, Europe is left with Palestinianism, which she has concocted as a substitute.
But now Europe wants to attract America into its own decay and delusion. The trans-Atlantic rapprochement can go two ways: America could draw nearer to Europe’s cult of Palestinianism, which is tantamount to submitting to bin Laden, the Arafat of America. Or the U.S. could bring Europe to her side. This later option is practically impossible today. Many Eurabian politicians have sternly predicted that the gap will not narrow. Not only social and demographic factors hinder this possibility, but Eurabian political leaders oppose it as they intend to maintain and cherish Arafat's iconic legacy. Moreover, Islamist terror from within and without is overwhelming Europe. Today it is not uncommon to hear Europeans express their disgust for Europe and their wish to emigrate. Europe, they say, is dead and has no future. They flee this Islamic-Christian dhimmi civilization where the native non-Muslims are deprived of their basic human rights under the yet unofficial shari’a rule that recognizes conditional peaceful co-existence only to dhimmis respectful of Islam. Going Europe’s way means a U.S. compliance to bin Laden and the denial of Islamist global terrorism, whose creator and promoter was Arafat, Europe’s hero and the demonic agent of its downfall.
Bat Ye'or is author of Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide. (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002). For a full analysis of the above thesis, see her forthcoming book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, January 2005, 384pp.)
Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Part I
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country's standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back myth" - the idea that Germany didn't lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews - helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.
However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.
In contrast, Eurabia – which asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn't happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders - is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn't fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown's massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown's fictional account "documents" a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I'm not sure my work will become equally popular, but I'm pretty sure it's closer to reality.
The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye'or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France's waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960's to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
"This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy," said Bat Ye'or. "We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe."
"Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives' demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel."
Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.
The use of the term "Eurabia" was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.
During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided "…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.
Bat Ye'or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle's inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian "nation" simply did not exist.
During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.
However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye'or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.
This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.
The recommendations included:
1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.
These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas "dialogue." All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye'or explained how "in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture."
Eurabia's driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members - from all major European political parties - active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project's prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture." It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU's "government," and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.
Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU's political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.
Bat Ye'or thinks that "Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values."
In the preface to her book, she states that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilization of dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ''dhimmi.'' It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.
Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia's constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.
This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.
According to Ye'or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: "It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."
Are Bat Ye'or's claims correct, or even possible?
Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, "the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease."
In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. "People of Egypt," he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, "You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur'an."
According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet." To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada - the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one's conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.
The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.
A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.
The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world." In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.
Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle's condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France - as well as the rest of Western Europe - had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser's Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.
It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.
Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.
President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.
Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years - at least from the 1920s - Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an "anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty."
In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation." However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.
A federation is, of course, a State and "yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws."
The EU founders "were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it." Booker and North call the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.
The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France's dilemma won't help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?
Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Part 2
MEDEA (the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation), supported by the European Commission, is one of the key components of the Euro-Arab dialogue. On its own webpage, it states that:
"The Euro-Arab Dialogue as a forum shared by the European Community and the League of Arab States arose out of a French initiative and was launched at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 1973, shortly after the "October War" and the oil embargo. As the Europeans saw it, it was to be a forum to discuss economic affairs, whereas the Arab side saw it rather as one to discuss political affairs.
MEDEA Institute wishes to be a resource and a reference point for people wanting to engage in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Via its meetings and talks the Institute seeks to create exchanges between political, economic, and diplomatic players, experts, journalists, academics and others."
As Bat Ye'or points out, while most of the workings of Eurabia are hidden from the public view, sometimes we can catch glimpses of it if we know what to look for. If you search the archives of the MEDEA website and other sources and read the documents carefully, the information is there. Even more material exists on paper, both in French and in English. I argue, as does Bat Ye'or, that there are sufficient amounts of information available to validate the thesis of Eurabia.
One of the documents Bat Ye'or was kind enough to send me (which she mentions in her French book about Eurabia but not in her English book) is the Common Strategy of the European Council - Vision of the EU for the Mediterranean Region, from June 19th 2000.
It includes many recommendations, such as:
"to elaborate partnership-building measures, notably by promoting regular consultations and exchanges of information with its Mediterranean partners, support the interconnection of infrastructure between Mediterranean partners, and between them and the EU, take all necessary measures to facilitate and encourage the involvement of civil society as well as the further development of human exchanges between the EU and the Mediterranean partners. NGOs will be encouraged to participate in cooperation at bilateral and regional levels. Particular attention will be paid to the media and universities [my emphasis]."
It also includes the goal of assisting the Arab partners with "the process of achieving free trade with the EU." This may be less innocent than it sounds, as I will come back to later. The Strategy also wants to "pursue, in order to fight intolerance, racism and xenophobia, the dialogue between cultures and civilisations." Notice that this statement preceded both the start of the second Palestinian intifada as well as the terror attacks of September 11th 2001. It was thus part of an ongoing process, rather than a response to any particular international incident.
One point in the document is particularly interesting. The EU wanted to "promote the identification of correspondences between legal systems of different inspirations in order to resolve civil law problems relating to individuals: laws of succession and family law, including divorce."
In plain English, it is difficult to see this bureaucratic obfuscation as anything other than an indicator that the EU countries will be lenient, adjusting their secular legislation to the sharia requirements of Muslim immigrants in family matters.
In another document from December 2003, which is available online, Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission and Chris Patten, member of the European Commission, have signed a plan for "Strengthening the EU's Partnership with the Arab World."
This includes the creation of a free trade area, but also plans to "invigorate cultural/religious/civilisation and media dialogue using existing or planned instruments, including the planned Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations.
Arab immigrants make a substantial contribution to the development of Europe. The EU is firmly committed to fight all manifestations of racism and discrimination in all its forms. [What constitutes discrimination? Secular laws?] Full respect for the rights of immigrants in Europe is a consistent policy throughout Europe. Its implementation should be improved further and co-operation in the framework of existing agreements should be enhanced to take into account the concerns of Arab partners."
Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU's inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an "inner market" with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it.
Another statement from the "Sixth Euro-Med Ministerial Conference: reinforcing and bringing the Partnership forward" in Brussels, 28 November 2003, makes the intention of this internal Euro-Mediterranean market:
"This initiative offers the EU's neighbouring partners, in exchange for tangible political and economic reforms, gradual integration into the expanded European internal market and the possibility of ultimately reaching the EU's four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people [my emphasis]. Ministers are also expected to back the Commission's proposal1 to set up a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly."
In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that:
"It's time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean." Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with "different" political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process - whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 - was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. "The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us" he added.
Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye'or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this "Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone."
During the Euro-Mediterranean mid-term Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Dublin in May 2004, the participants declared that:
"Work is now in progress to develop an agreed view on relations with the area which extends from Mauritania to Iran - the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The [European] Union has proposed to include Mediterranean partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy."
The EU can offer a more intensive political dialogue and greater access to EU programmes and policies, including their gradual participation in the four freedoms particularly the Single Market, as well as reinforced co-operation on justice and home affairs."
Again, exactly what does "co-operation on justice and home affairs" with Egypt, Syria and Algeria mean? I don't know, but I'm not sure whether I will like the answer.
The Barcelona declaration from 1995 encouraged "contacts between parliamentarians" and invited the European Parliament, with other Parliaments, to launch "the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary dialogue." In March 2004, this was converted into a specific institution called The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, EMPA (pdf). During the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Crete in May 2003, the Ministers included a provision which envisaged the consultative role the Parliamentary Assembly will play within the framework of the Barcelona process.
EU Commissioner Chris Patten has reiterated the European Commission's readiness to co-operate fully with the Assembly, giving the Assembly the right to comment on any subject of interest to the Euro-Arab Dialogue.
The Assembly consists of 120 members from EU countries, both members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, and an equal number of representatives from the Parliaments of the Mediterranean partner countries.
Like most Europeans, I hadn't even heard about this institution before coming across it during an Internet search. However, it is apparently going to influence the future of my entire continent. This set-up leaves me with some questions. When we know that these "Mediterranean partner countries" include non-democratic Arab countries such as Syria, isn't it disturbing that representatives from these countries should participate in a permanent institution with consultative powers over the internal affairs of the European Union? Especially when we know that our own, democratically elected national parliaments have already been reduced to the status of "consultation" with unelected federal EU lawmakers in Brussels?
The Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future was made after a Congress held in Algeria in February 2006. The document states that: "It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values" and that "It is crucial to positively emphasise all common cultural heritage, even if marginalised or forgotten." A Common Action Plan draws up a large number of recommendations on how to achieve this new Euro-Mediterranean entity. Among these recommendations are:
- Adapt existing organisations and the contents of media to the objectives of the North- South dialogue, and set up a Euro-Mediterranean journalism centre
- Set up a network jointly managed by the Mediterranean partners in order to develop "a harmonised education system" [A "harmonized education system" between the Arab world and Europe? What does that include? Do I want to know? Will they tell us before it is a fait accompli?]
- Facilitate the transfer of know-how between the EU countries and the Mediterranean partner nations and "encourage the circulation of individuals"
- Prepare action and arguments in support of facilitating the mobility of individuals, especially of students, intellectuals, artists, businessmen "and all conveyors of dialogue"
- Set up Ministries responsible for Mediterranean affairs in countries of the North and of the South [Europe and the Arab world, in Eurocrat newspeak], in order to benefit from a better management of Mediterranean policy;
- Train teachers and exchange students between the North and the South and set up a network of Euro-Mediterranean Youth clubs
- Establish a "civil watchdog" anti-defamation observatory (with an Internet tool and a legal help network), to cope with racist remarks and the propagation of hate towards people of different religion, nationality or ethnic background
These agreements, completely rewriting European history books to make them more Islam-friendly, and gradually silencing "Islamophobia" as racism, are being implemented even now.
Walter Schwimmer, the Austrian diplomat and Secretary General of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2004, told foreign ministers at the Islamic conference in Istanbul (June 15th 2004) that the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe's diversity. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Council of Europe to work against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
The Council was also actively involved in the co-organisation of a Conference on the Image of Arab-Islamic culture in European history textbooks, which took place in Cairo in December 2004. The event was held within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue ''Learning to Live together.'' The aim of the conference was to examine negative stereotyping in the image of Arab-Islamic culture presented in existing history textbooks, and to discuss ways to overcome this stereotyping.
In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.
In June 2005 in Rabat, Morocco, a conference was held on "Fostering Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations." The Conference was jointly organized by UNESCO, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), the Danish Centre for Culture and Development (DCCD) and the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (Alexandria, Egypt).
Notice that this was months before the Danish Muhammad cartoons created havoc. It was not a reaction to this issue; rather it was a part of a sustained, ongoing process to promote the Arabic-Islamic culture in Europe.
Among the recommendations that were raised by Mr. Olaf Gerlach Hansen, Director General of the DCCD: "We are interested in new actions in the media, in culture and in education. These proposals include:
- Concrete initiatives to develop "intercultural competencies" in the training of new generations of journalists
- Concrete initiatives for links and exchanges between journalists, editors, media-institutions, which encourage intercultural co-operation"
- Concrete initiatives for curriculum development through new educational materials and revision of existing textbooks.
Although not stated directly, one may reasonably assume that among the "negative stereotypes" to be removed from the textbooks used to teach history to European schoolchildren are any and all references to the 1300 years of continuous Jihad warfare against Europe. These recommendations were accepted and incorporated into The Rabat Commitment.
According to Serge Trifkovic, "The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals a deep underlying moral and demographic weakness. The symptoms of the malaise are apparent in the unprecedented demographic collapse and in the loss of a sense of place and history that go hand-in-hand with the expansion of the European Union. The emerging transnational hyper-state is actively indoctrinating its subject-population into believing and accepting that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim
aliens is actually a blessing."
He points out specifically the EU Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on "the contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture." A decade later, in its General policy recommendation n° 5: "Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims," the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasized "Islam's positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part." It expressed strong regret "that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat."
The ECRI called on the EU member states to adopt measures that would effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim "affirmative action." European countries should:
- modify curricula to prevent "distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history" and "portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace";
- encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias;
Trifkovic says "Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just as bad as jihad's fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and facilitators."
Eurabians want to create a unity of the Mediterranean region. This desire is strikingly similar to the goals of some Islamic organizations.
The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the most important Islamic movement of the past century, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, inspired by contemporary European Fascists in addition to Islamic texts.
German historian Egon Flaig quotes Banna as saying:
"We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be."
Patrick Poole describes how discussion of a document called "The Project" so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.
Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers" associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West.
The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood "master plan." Some of it recommendations include:
- Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions
- Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations
- Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations
- Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam
- Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals
Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef al-Qaradhawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradhawi's publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate.
As Patrick Poole says, "What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades." Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, has predicted that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor," was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots, whipping up anger against Denmark and the West.
According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organized well in advance by Islamist organizations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia."
The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organizations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. Akef has called the U.S. "a Satan." "I expect America to collapse soon," declaring, "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America."
Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organizations employ the Flexibility strategy: "This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all "legal" means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, "Islamized" Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation's workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions."
In the Middle East Quarterly, Lorenzo Vidino writes about "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe."
According to him, "Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations."
One of the Muslim Brotherhood's first pioneers in Germany was Sa'id Ramadan, the personal secretary of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, run by Sa'id's son Hani Ramadan, brother of Tariq Ramadan. Hani Ramadan was made infamous by - among other things - a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. Tariq Ramadan, a career "moderate Muslim," later called for a "moratorium" on stoning.
According to Vidino, "The ultimate irony is that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would have never dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe."
Former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warns that the Islamicization going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It "is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States."
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organize themselves into viable Muslim communities. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority, and to resist assimilation must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration.
Douglas Farah writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate, territory that effectively becomes "Muslim" land once it is in the hands of Islamist groups. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims.
The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group's financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the "moderate" elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the "radical" elements.
"We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning."
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 [my emphasis]," 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 Czesław Miłosz, 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 Miłosz 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 Miłosz, 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'?"
Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Part 4
The European Union gave the Palestinians $342.8 million in aid in 2005 — or, more accurately, $612.15 million when assistance from the 25 EU governments is included. Even the United States has repeatedly donated millions of American tax dollars to the Palestinian Authority, though not at EU levels. In July 2005, as a response to the Islamic terrorist attacks on London a few days earlier, leaders of the G8, the group of influential industrialized nations, offered the PA some $9 billion, dubbed an "alternative to the hatred."
The West's largesse continued despite a demographic study in 2005 which revealed that the number showing the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza had been inflated by 50% by the government.
Almost all of the new infrastructure in the Palestinian territories from the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s — schools, hospitals, airports — were arranged and paid for by Brussels. As Jihad was once again unleashed with the second Intifada in 2000, Israel stopped its transfer of payments to the Palestinians. So the EU stepped in with another 10 million Euros a month in direct budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority. EU Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten stated in 2002 that "there is no case for stating that EU money has financed terrorism, has financed the purchase of weapons, or any similar activities."
However, a report by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies later found that: "There is indisputable evidence that PA money has been used to fund terrorist activities." This was confirmed by Fuad Shubaki, who used to serve as the finance chief in the Palestinian security forces. According to him, former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat ordered millions of dollars, taken from international aid funds, tax money transferred by Israel and from Arab countries, to be used to purchase weapons and ammunition, including the 50 tons of armaments on board the ship Karine A. The transaction was coordinated between the PA, Hizballah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
In May 2006, Mahmoud Abbas — President of the Palestinian Authority after Arafat's death in November 2004 and a leading politician in Fatah — talked to the European Parliament about the peace process. At the same time, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, threatened to strike at US and European economic and civilian interests in response to international sanctions on the PA. Financial support evokes no gratitude in the Palestinians. However, they will threaten you with violence if aid is not forthcoming. This is plainly extortion.
This shakedown corresponds to the Muslims' view of the Jizya, the tributary tax paid by non-Muslims in exchange for not being killed. Documents from the Euro-Arab Dialogue frequently mention about "financial assistance" from the EU to Arab countries. Bat Ye'or points out that some of this Jizya tax is extracted from Europeans without their awareness.
In November 2005, the EU's official financial watchdog refused to approve the EU's accounts for the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud and errors. The European Court of Auditors refused to give a statement of assurance on the EU's $160.3 billion budget for 2004. "The vast majority of the payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity," it said. It specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU's foreign policy and aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab countries. Half the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored. The European Commission is considered the EU's "government," and thus the government of nearly half a billion people. But it can release accounts with massive flaws for over a decade straight because it is largely unaccountable to anybody and was intended to be that way.
Muslims use deception to advance Jihad until it is almost too late for the infidels to stop them. The EU federalists and Eurabians have taken
a page out of the Islamic playbook, and have been approaching their goals by stealth for decades, buried beneath a mass of detail and technocratic newspeak all but incomprehensible to non-bureaucrats. In a frank moment, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, once described the EU's "system" in this way: "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens," he explained. "If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
In The Economist, columnist Charlemagne writes: "What Mr Juncker and those who think like him are trying to do is, in essence, to drown opposition to European federation in a mass of technical detail, to bore people into submission. As a strategy, it has gone a long way. [My emphasis] The greatest single transfer of sovereignty from Europe's nations to the European Union took place, in 1985, as part of the project to create a single European market. Even [British Conservative PM] Margaret Thatcher, not usually slow to spot a trick, later claimed that she had not fully appreciated the ramifications of what she was then signing up to."
Writer Christopher Booker has called this the EU's "culture of deceit":
"What in fact has been taking place has been a transfer of power (…) to Brussels on a scale amounting to the greatest constitutional revolution in our history. But much of this has remained buried from view because our politicians like to preserve the illusion that they are still in charge. The result is that remarkably few people now have any proper understanding of how the political system which rules our lives actually works."
I have used the term "neo-Feudalism" to describe the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who think that everything that's wrong with Europe is because of "populism" — what others call democracy. The motive force behind the EU aims to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy. This is a throwback to the pre-democratic age. Karl Zinsmeister notes that: "The EU apparatus is exceedingly closed and secretive. Relatively few of the confederation's important decisions are currently made by democratically accountable officials. On front after front, bureaucratic mandarins are deciding how everyday Europeans will live. … Many Europeans, in a way Americans find impossible to understand, are willing to let their elites lead them by the nose. There is a kind of peasant mentality under which their "betters" are allowed to make the important national judgments for them."
MP Gisela Stuart was a member of the Praesidium which drafted the proposed EU Constitution. She sums up her experiences thus: "The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration, and who see national parliaments and governments as an obstacle ... Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union."
In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all the British political groups in Brussels called for an end the "medieval" practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU's supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain's laws, "is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret."
According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. "Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion. Indeed, the EU's structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic."
The European Union has been compared to the Roman Empire, but such comparisons are not very apt. Rome was the military superpower of its time, while the EU is but a military midget. However, there is one intriguing commonality: Julius Caesar was murdered because he wanted to crown himself king. This was not a popular move among the powerful elite in the Senate, who reminded Caesar that Rome had become a Republic precisely because they had rebelled against the "tyrant" kings of old.
Caesar's successor Octavian, better known today as Caesar Augustus, is considered both the first and one of the most important Roman Emperors. He downplayed his own position by preferring the title princeps, usually translated as "first citizen". He also preserved the outward form of the Roman Republic, paid lip service to the old elite, and veiled the changes to make them seem less upsetting to the public. He may have been a monarch, but he never called himself one.
Some might see a parallel in the present-day EU. When up to three-quarters of our national laws originate in Brussels, what is then the point of holding national elections? Just as in Octavian's Rome, the real power has been moved elsewhere, but the old order is draped over reality as a democratic fig leaf in order not to upset the common people. The EU operates largely by stealth; its edicts are implemented through traditional parliaments, which are increasingly reduced to decorative appendages.
The funny aspect of this is that those who are against the EU are labelled xenophobes, nationalists or simply anti-democratic forces. The EU is an organization where unelected bureaucrats dismantle democracy, yet denounce their critics as anti-democratic forces.
In order to create this new entity, the old nation states must be deliberately crushed. Massive numbers of non-European immigrants are introduced, and the resulting situation is termed a "Multicultural society". This demolition is followed by the demand that our entire society be changed accordingly.
Since Europeans feel less "European" than they experience themselves as French, Italian, Dutch, etc., national allegiances have to be broken down. At the same time, an external rival must be created. The closest model is Bismarck's unification of Germany. The numerous German states rallied to Prussia's side against the French in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, thus paving the way for a new, powerful German federation.
The EU federalists strive to build a united European state through a shared animosity against the USA, while constructing a Eurabian entity of Europe and the Arab world via their common hostility towards Israel. One tactic is the deliberate use of the media to whip up anger against these countries and to demonize them.
However, Bismarck's German states were united by a common language. Even if a "new us" could be constructed from dozens of nations — which is highly questionable — melding various ethnic groups into a cohesive nation takes centuries. Without a shared identity, without a European demos, how can the EU be anything but authoritarian? Perhaps the EU elites believe that a large mass of people lacking a distinct cultural identity would be easier to control?
The problem is that the nation state itself has been declared evil or obsolete, not collectivism, anti-individualism or totalitarianism. But there is a crucial distinction between nationalism and patriotism, which George Orwell saw clearly:
"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power."
Totalitarian regimes can be national, such as Nazi Germany, but they can also be supranational, such as the Soviet Union, which sought to suppress all pre-existing national loyalties.
How was a project as big as the creation of Eurabia pulled off? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the conclusion that it succeeded precisely because of its size. St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. "How dare you molest the sea?" asked Alexander. "How dare you molest the whole world?" the pirate replied. "Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor."
It's a matter of scale. If a small group of people sideline the democratic process in one country and start imposing their own laws on the public, it's called a coup d'état. If they do so on an entire continent, it's called the European Union.
Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf described a propaganda technique known as "the Big Lie". The EU has adopted this strategy, which consists of telling a lie so "colossal" that it would be impossible to believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." This has been combined with the technique, perfected by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany, of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.
Here are some Big Lies:
- Diversity is always good;
- Multiculturalism is inevitable, as is continued EU integration;
- Those opposing it are ignorant racists standing against the tide of history;
- Muslim immigration is "good for the economy" and is necessary for funding the welfare state in the future, despite the fact that it drains away enormous resources.
The creation of Eurabia ranks as one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization. Does that mean that all EU federalists or those who participate in the various instruments of the Euro-Arab Dialogue are evil? No, reality isn't that simple. As Hugh Fitzgerald points out, "A whole class of people has gotten rich from Arab money and bribes; lawyers, public relations men, and diplomats, journalists, university teachers and assorted officials."
However, while ignorance, corruption and the self-serving search for personal power explains some of the behavior of the Eurabian elites, it cannot explain the behavior of ALL those thousands of people who have been involved in these networks. Some of them must have convinced themselves that what they were doing was for a just cause, if for no other reason than because human vanity demands that we justify our actions by covering them with a veneer of goodness.
In the science fiction movie Serenity, the two great superpowers, the United States and China, have merged into the Alliance, which has moved humanity to a new star system. On the little-known planet Miranda, a gas called Pax was added to the air processors. It was intended to calm the population, weed out aggression. It worked. The people stopped fighting. They also stopped doing everything else, including breeding and physical self-preservation. A small minority of the population had the opposite reaction to this pacification. Their aggression increased beyond madness, and they killed most of the others. Tens of millions of people quietly let themselves be wiped out.
Movie director Joss Whedon is careful to point out that the Alliance isn't some evil empire, but rather a force that is largely benevolent. They meant it for the best, to create a better world, a world without sin. However, according to Whedon, "Whenever you create Utopia, you find something ugly working underneath it."
Former Europeans who fought against Jihad fought for a number of things: Their religion, their culture and their nation. EU federalists and Eurabians are deliberately suppressing all of these instincts in their quest to create a New Man and weed out aggression. However, because they have wrongly identified the nation state as the root cause of all evil, they are suppressing not just aggressive nationalism, but defensive patriotism. And since some of the Muslims have actually become even more aggressive in response to what they perceive as our nihilism, the Eurabians have suicidally disarmed their own people, literally and metaphorically, and put them up for slaughter.
Many Communists, at least in the beginning, really believed in their ideology. The result was mass slaughter; tens of millions of people were killed in the quest for a world without oppression or exploitation. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless of how good your intentions may be, you cannot use millions of people as guinea pigs in massive social experiments without also causing massive harm.
Perhaps one of the reasons why this has been allowed to happen in Western Europe and the European Union is because we never fully understood or attempted to confront the reasons for the abysmal failure of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union following the Cold War. The concept of massive social experiments to create a New Man was allowed to survive. It mutated and then migrated West. Jean Monnet, who set in motion the process of European integration, reflected on how the European civil service constituted a 'laboratory' in which a new kind of 'European Man' would be born. But the New European Man, just like the New Soviet Man before him, is all but certain to fail.
Can the European Union be reformed? I doubt it. The EU is bound together by a self-serving class of bureaucrats who want to expand their budgets and their power, despite the harm they do. These functionaries will use traditional methods of deception to counteract any calls for reforms so they can retain control.
It is instructive to watch the reactions of the EU elites to the popular rejections in France and Holland of the EU Constitution in 2005. They put together a "wise" group of European politicians, led by Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister in "super-Eurabian" Romano Prodi's government, to come up with possible solutions to this impasse. Suggestions discussed included dropping the name "constitution" in favor of "treaty."
The same Amato, who is a former Italian Prime Minister and also the Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution, has earlier stated that:
"In Europe one needs to act 'as if' — as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if states were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty ... The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge [my emphasis]."
That a man who has openly bragged about how EU federalist goals are advanced by "disguise and subterfuge" leads the attempts to "renew" the EU Constitution tells ordinary Europeans everything we need to know about the EU. If the EU elites have deliberately deceived us for decades to achieve their goals, why should we suddenly trust them now? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. These people have fooled us enough.
"I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized," says Vladimir Bukovksy. "There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover.(…) Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles."
In their book about the EU, Richard North and Christopher Booker conclude: "The project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket (…) The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic." They believe the EU is doomed and will "leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge."
I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause "instability" in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with "instability" anyway, given the number of Muslims the EUrabians have let in. The choice is between a period of painful years in which most of Europe prevails, and death, where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western cultural entity.
Some would hope that we could keep the "positive" aspects of the EU and not "throw out the baby with the bath water." I beg to differ. The EU is all bath water, no baby. There never was a baby, just a truckload of overpaid babysitters.
Multiculturalism separates people into "tribes" below the nation state level. This is precisely the situation we had in Europe in the Middle Ages. Likewise, the idea that we should "respect" other cultures by not criticizing them means turning the clock back several centuries to the pre-Enlightenment era. Multiculturalism is merely a medieval ideology, and will generate medieval results.
Although the EU will fail in creating a pan-European identity, it has already partly succeeded in weakening the traditional nation states. Across Western Europe, Muslim immigrants tend to settle in major cities, with the native population retreating into the countryside. This destruction of the coherence of society is triggering a return to tribalism, as people no longer trust the nation state to protect them.
The process has been explained by Ernest Baert: "Over many centuries, Western Europe has replaced the tribe or clan by the nation state." The result was that "European citizens tend to have equal trust in all other citizens of the same nation state outside their immediate family and circle of friends." This "high-trust society" was a necessary precondition not only for the success of a capitalist economy in Europe, but also for the rise of democracy. A different worldview prevails in the Muslim world or in Africa. There, individuals have no choice but to fall back on their clan for protection. So what effect will the introduction of massive numbers of individuals from "low-trust societies" have on our own culture? Baert is pessimistic:
"There is little doubt that we live in the dying days of the multicultural fantasy. It will end in misery and may lead to the loss of Europe as a part of Western civilisation. Our children and grandchildren will look back to our days and wonder why so many so easily accepted what patently contradicted history and common sense." While ordinary Europeans live in fear of Muslim violence in their own cities and trust in their own leaders is plummeting, EU elites meet in cocktail parties and congratulate each other for bringing peace to Europe.
The European Union promised a Brave New World where wars and ethnic rivalries were a thing of the past. Will it deliver the Middle Ages? Maybe that's what Utopias tend to do.
The Eurabia Code - 2008 Updates
by Fjordman
The Eurabia Code – 2008 Updates
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2008-10-13 20:27
My essay The Eurabia Code was published in 2006, inspired by Bat Ye'or's groundbreaking book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. I have chosen to reproduce The Eurabia Code almost unchanged in my upcoming book Defeating Eurabia, but will include some updates. What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. This hasn't been a total secret previously – in 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe – but why go public with this now? My theory is that EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. They have held us in contempt for years and no longer care to hide this. We are sheep and constitute no threat while they must continue appeasing the Muslims.
Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union" or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel. This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (read: Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process – A Union for the Mediterranean." Notice how they tie this explicitly to the Eurabian Barcelona Process described by Bat Ye'or. Despite this, even after the Mediterranean Union was launched, I heard claims that any talk about Eurabia was a "dangerous Islamophobic conspiracy theory."
In a letter appearing in the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008 revealed that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of the late Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country."
This was the formal birth of Eurabia, when Western European governments, giving in to pressure from Arab terrorists and oil-producing states, abandoned their traditional pro-Israeli position and gradually aligned themselves with the Arab-Islamic world. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Italians were the only ones to make such "deals." In addition to cultural and political cooperation, European governments have agreed to pay Arabs, Palestinians in particular, large sums in "protection money" to reduce the terrorist threat. This can only be seen as jizya, and the practice has later spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.
The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, between 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU's official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.
From 2007, MEDA was replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU's powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project; all according to documents available on the Internet, yet almost unknown to the general public since the mainstream media rarely mention them.
I got some critical comments to my original Eurabia Code, among others a claim that the Algiers Declaration from 2006, which is mentioned in the text, is not signed by any official EU body. However, the Anna Lind Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the dialogue between cultures, which organized this, is linked to from the official EU website as a part of the EU's external relations programs and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Some of the organizations that participate in this may technically be independent organizations, but there is no doubt that the European Commission constitutes the driving force behind these networks. Moreover, if you read these documents closely, you will find that they mention "harmonization of the education systems" between Europe and the Arab world. This requires the involvement of the authorities at the highest level.
In September 2008, a brief statement in a few media outlets in Denmark (I've seen remarkably little mention of this far-reaching proposal in the mainstream media in most European countries) said that Muslims living in the EU will in future be able to divorce according to sharia law. This is the belief of the Commission, which recommends that a couple be able to choose which country's law they will follow if they divorce – as long as they have some kind of connection to the country they choose. Danish People's Party spokesman Morten Messerschmidt was greatly concerned about the proposal: "It's a completely lamebrain idea, the possibility that the Commission will use inhumane sharia laws in the EU," he said.
What people don't understand is that this is a part of long-term deals that have already been agreed upon by EU leaders. Virtually all Western European leaders have already surrendered. There is no longer a question of whether or not sharia will be officially accepted as law (as it has been for Muslims living in Britain); it is only a question of how to implement this.
Meanwhile, a proposed European Arrest Warrant lists a number of crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any interference of the other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.
Racism includes "Islamophobia," according to EU documents, which means that "Islamophobia" could soon be treated as a crime as serious as rape and armed robbery across the European continent. At the same time, EU leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, we can imagine a situation where the authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He will then be handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan.
Remember that blasphemy against Islam carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is about to reach its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot who was arrested in 2008 for cartoons that "insulted" Muslims. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known by the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should "harmonize" the education and legal systems with the Arab "partner countries" within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso earlier expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution referendum. "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable," he said, asking "every member state" considering a referendum to "think twice." Mr Barroso in his previous job as Portuguese Prime Minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country – but since then his thinking has changed. "I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?"
As journalist Nick Fagge stated in the British newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008:
"More than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversiële taxpayer-funded 'job centre' opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting 'free movement of people in Africa and the EU'. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will 'need' 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the 'demographic decline' due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. It states: ...'Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.' The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: 'It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say 'yes', we need immigration …is not a new development, we must accept it.'"
Let's sum up our findings so far: The EU has accepted that the Union should be enlarged to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. The EU has accepted that tens of millions of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in northern Africa should be allowed to settle in Europe in the years ahead. This is supposedly "good for the economy." It is planning to implement sharia laws for the millions of Muslims it is inviting to settle in Europe. It has passed stronger anti-racism laws while making it clear that "Islamophobia" constitutes a form of racism, and is cooperating with Islamic countries on rewriting school textbooks to provide a "positive" image of Islam to European children. Finally, the EU is developing an Arrest Warrant which stipulates that those charged with serious crimes, for instance racism, can be arrested without undue interference of the nation state they happen to live in. In essence, the EU is formally surrendering an entire continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to harass those who disagree with this policy. This constitutes the greatest organized betrayal in Western history, perhaps in human history, yet is hailed as a victory for "tolerance."
José Manuel Barroso, the leader of the unaccountable government for half a billion people, has stated that the EU is an empire. Maybe we think it's ridiculous to see the EU as an empire, but his statement shows that some people in leading positions do think like this. It would make sense to remember that all empires in history have been created through war. If the EU is an empire, this means that a war is being waged against somebody. And it is: A cultural and demographic war waged by mass immigration against native Europeans. Whereas empires are normally created by waging a war against other peoples, the EU is the first empire in history created by leaders allowing other peoples to wage a war against their own.
The European Union – or the Eurabian Empire if you will – is a naked power grab by the elites in order to dismantle the nations there are supposed to serve. Instead of being mere servants of the people in smaller countries, they aspire to become members of an unaccountable elite ruling a vast empire as they see fit. This is why they continue to promote mass immigration as if nothing has happened even if people get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered in their own cities. They don't care. They are generals on a warpath. Ordinary citizens are simply cannon fodder, pawns to be sacrificed in the conquest of their glorious, new empire. Mass immigration is used to crush all nation states simultaneously so that the natives have no real alternatives to flee to, and no countries can come to the aid of others against the advancing Islamization.
Finally, we should remember one thing: All of this started with the appeasement of Arab bullies like Arafat in the 1970s, who used oil or terrorism or both as weapons. Europeans should work to get rid of the culture of betrayal, but then we also need to get rid of the culture of appeasement that brought us in this mess in the first place. No money for the Palestinians; not one cent. If they need money, they can ask the Saudis. And no more appeasement of or deals with Islamic terrorists. It was "dialogue," the Euro-Arab Dialogue, that created these problems. No more "dialogue." The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose, and make him back down. That's the only appropriate way to deal with Jihadists.
About Me
- IceViking
- This blogger is a Proud Friend of Israel (previously with IsraPundit) that supports lovingly helping Muslims leave Islam as well as ending mass immigration. IceViking loves woman but is an antifeminist and blogs mainly in English and Swedish. Stöd islamkritiska och israelvänliga politikerna Kent Ekeroth (SD) och Ted Ekeroth (SD) vilka vill stoppa massinvandringen och islamiseringen. Stöd också Anti-islamiseringsfonden!
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(80)
-
►
November
(15)
- Ex-sex slave hails Saudi beheading, prison and las...
- Video of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
- "Top 5 List of Stupidest Fatwas"
- Is Feminism a Hate Movement?
- Mohammad på topp ...men bare i Oslo
- Gender Inconsistencies
- Könskriget
- Stanley Sjöberg: Islam förlorar i Afrika men vinne...
- "var der overraskende mange kvinder i Meston og Bu...
- Ireland: "any 16-year-old boy who has sex with 16-...
- Saudi court upholds sentence of beheading and cruc...
- Weapon of Musical Defense - WMD
- Thailand: "More than 3900 people have died in shoo...
- Illiteracy plagues Arab world
- Historiens betydelse
-
►
October
(23)
- The Islamic slave trade: the untold story
- Aftonbladet/United Minds nya väljarbarometer: Sver...
- Anita Dunn and Mao Tse-Tung
- What Islam is not
- Irish poll: 36% would prefer Ireland to be ruled u...
- Poll: 71% of German Muslims, 80% of French Muslim...
- Domestic Violence Awareness Month – India
- The eunuchs in India?
- Anti-islamiseringsfonden
- Jussi Björling sjunger Willhelm Stenhammars tonsät...
- CAMERA`s formal letter to Aftonbladet`s editor-in-...
- Support Vaclav Klaus - Stop the Lisbon Treaty!
- Forced Islamization of Christian Conscripts in the...
- Polls of Muslims in Nigeria and other places
- Poll of Saudis
- Quotes regarding demographics and Islam in the Net...
- Stanley Sjöberg: Muslimer i Europa har "missionsup...
- What Islam Isn't
- Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 1.57 billio...
- Opinion polls - Indonesia and Iraq
- Russia becoming a Muslim state?
- Research Dismisses the Validity of Feminist Gender...
- Nutida Trojansk Häst: Al Hijra, Den Islamiska Dokt...
-
►
September
(42)
- Why Men Matter: Mating Patterns Drive Evolution of...
- Hans C Pettersson: De iranska mullornas subversiva...
- Falska våldtäktsanmälningar?
- The International Free Press Society declares Sept...
- Falska anklagelser av våldtäkt
- "Trods stigningen i antallet af indvandrere er ant...
- Tears of Jihad - 270 million non-Muslim deaths est...
- Pojkars skolgång?
- Barnens bön för fäderneslandet
- Ann Coulter and Neal Boortz on the women`s vote
- Dr. John R. Lott on female suffrage (quote)
- Pakistan`s Daily Times: Girls’ madrassas, May 16, ...
-
►
November
(15)
De sjuka i Sverige?
Labels (selected posts)
Jihad Watch
Europe News
Backspin
MensNewsDaily
Pelle Billing
Kent Ekeroth
Ted Ekeroth
FRED I MELLANÖSTERN
Pelle Billing
Tanja Bergkvists Blog
Reading relating to Islam
- Answering Islam - Library of Classical Books
- Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa - Book Reviews
- Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies - Required Reading
- Centre for Social Cohesion - Recommended Reading
- Compilation of and links to all of my posts regarding polls of Muslims (still updated)
- Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or
- Faith Freedom International - Book Review Archive
- Former Muslims United - Books on Apostasy from Islam
- Hadith - Collections
- Jihad Watch - Recommended Books
- Middle East Quarterly - Book Reviews
- Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration by Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
- Quran - Translations
- Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik
- The Islam Comic Book
Anti-Suffragism
Link List (in English)
- A lawyer on the sceptics-A website by Victor J Zammit
- A Shrink for Men
- About Last Night - Terry Teachout
- Acronym Finder - AF
- Advice to Young Musicians. Musikalische Haus- und Lebens-Regeln by Robert Schumann
- Alexander Stoddart - Sculptor
- Allah`s Willing Executioners
- American Council for Kosovo
- Amil Imani
- An exorcist tells his story by Father Gabriele Amorth
- Andreas B. Dahlin
- Andrew Bostom
- Angry Harry
- Antifeminist Pro Men Page
- Antimisandry.com
- Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa - ASMEA
- Atlas Shrugs - Pamela Geller
- Australian Islamist Monitor
- Barnabas Fund
- Barry Chamish
- Beautiful Womanhood Webring
- Berklee Press
- Biafra Nation
- Biblical Manhood
- Blogclicker
- Blogexplosion
- Blogflux
- Bloggernity
- Blogging Basics 101
- Bloglines
- Blogorama
- BlogsByCity
- Blogstreet
- Blogwise
- Bookase.com - compare book prices
- BookFinder.com
- Bosch Fawstin
- Buzzup
- CAIR: hate and terror
- CAMIE Awards presents... movie picks
- Campaign for Truth in Europe
- Center for Security Policy
- Center for Social Cohesion
- Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies
- Christianity Today Movies
- Classic Encyclopedia
- Coast to Coast AM
- Council of ex-Muslims of Britain
- Dads on the air
- Daily Blog Tips
- Daryl Cagle`s Political Cartoonists Index
- Date Younger Women
- David DeAngelo
- David Horowitz Newsreal
- Debbie Schlussel
- delicious
- Dhimmi.com - Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
- Dictionaries relating to the Russian language
- Digital resistance against Arabist propaganda in SWEDEN
- Divestment Watch
- Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado
- Doreen Virtue - Angel Therapy
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- English Defense League
- Equal but different
- EUdict - European Dictionary
- Europe News
- ExMuslims on Twitter
- Faith Freedom International
- Father Knowledge Centre Europe
- Father Zakaria Botros
- Feedblitz
- Female Misogynist
- Fight for gender equality - Uma Challa
- Former Muslims United
- Franco - relationship coach
- Free Dominion
- Free Thinking Films
- Freeman Center for Stategic Studies
- Frontline Fellowship
- Geert Wilders - Partij voor de Frijheid
- GetBlogs.com
- Helen Smith
- His Side with Glenn Sacks
- IceViking is a Proud Friend of Israel
- Indonesia Matters
- International Civil Liberties Alliance
- International Free Press Society
- Internet Haganah
- Islam in Action
- Islam Review
- Israel National News
- Jewish Internet Defense Force
- Joel`s Trumpet
- Johan Patricny - Painter
- John Taylor Gatto
- Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
- Ladies Against Feminism
- Lawrence Auster: On Women`s Equality
- Lions of Israel America Federation
- List Islam
- LSBlogs
- Maplandia.com
- Maps of World
- Mapup.com
- Masculinity Movies
- Memoria Press
- Men are better than women - Dick Masterson
- Mensactivism.org
- MensNewsDaily - MND
- MenWeb
- Misandry Review
- Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
- Moving on.....
- Muslims Against Sharia
- My compilation of polls of Muslims (still updated)
- National Coalition of Free Men
- New English Review
- Niall Ferguson
- Obama Fail Blog
- Only Love Is Real: A Story of Soulmates Reunited by Brian Weiss
- Palestinian Media Watch
- Paul Moravec - Composer
- Pedestrian Infidel
- Pelle Billing
- People Can Change
- Peter Linde - Sculptor
- PFOX - Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
- Poem Hunter
- Political Islam
- Politically Incorrect
- Protecting Your Money from Unprofessional Pick-up Experts
- Radio Liberty - Stanley Monteith
- Raymond Ibrahim
- Real Modern Man
- Reverso Dictionary
- Russia Blog
- Rustran.com (En-Ru/Ru-En translation)
- Sanford Braver
- Scribd
- Scribd
- ShareThis
- Siddur.org
- Simulev -Swedish anti-Israel bias!
- Sir Martin Gilbert
- Soundcloud
- Spikharry
- Spiritual Cinema Circle
- Stopwatch
- Strategic Social
- Support Vaclav Klaus - Stop the Lisbon treaty!
- Take A Pen!
- The Boy`s Own Paper: Against the Suffragettes
- The Brussels Journal
- the Dry Bones Blog
- The Evil Style Queen
- The False Rape Society
- The Fjordman Files
- The Investigative Project on Terrorism
- The Jawa Report
- The Men`s Tribune
- The Middle East Media Research Institute
- The Most Destructive Single Cause
- The New Criterion
- The Perfect Pitch Ear Training Supercourse by David Lucas Burge
- The Wordtracker Academy
- Thoughts of a nationalist Indian
- TinyURL
- Tundra Tabloids
- Twingly
- UK Independence Party
- View from the Right - Lawrence Auster
- Voice of the Martyrs
- Vox Day
- Walid Shoebat
- Warren Farrell
- Weapon of Musical Defense
- Weblogs.com
- What American/Western Women Don't Want You To Know!!!
- Wikio
- William Fain Productions
- Women in Green
- WordReference.com
- WorldNetDaily
Link List (non-English)
- Aktionsgruppen för de sjukförsäkrades rätt
- Aktivarum
- Andreas B. Dahlin
- Anti-feministens blogg
- Anti-islamiseringsfonden
- Antifeministiskt Initiativ
- AntiJihad Norge
- Artikel 19
- Atelier Stockholm
- Atlantis Bokförlag
- Avslöjande myter om sexuell orientering - AMOSO
- Axess
- Bevara Äktenskapet
- Björn Söder
- bloggar.se
- Bloggportalen.se
- Bloglovin (på svenska)
- Blott Sverige - Karin Stensdotter
- Carl Forsbergs Bokförlag
- Centralrådet för ex-muslimer i Skandinavien
- Creative Experiences Terry Evans AB
- Daddys (på svenska)
- Den Palestinska Nationella Stadgan - PLO:s stadga (på svenska)
- Det Sanna Sverige
- Dictionnaire de la langue francaise
- Dragonen - antiislamism
- Emmas Afeministiska Hörna
- Fakta om falska våldtäktsanmälningar
- Fjordmans rapport (Fjordmans texter på svenska)
- Folket som inte finns
- Forum mot islamisering
- Fred i Mellanöstern - FIDIM
- Freedom and Reason (på svenska)
- Fria Nyheter
- Fädernas Kyrka - Sverigedemokraterna i Svenska Kyrkan
- Genderrorism (på svenska)
- Genusmagazinet
- Genusnytt- Per Ström
- Genusperspektiv.se
- Hemmets Vän
- Hennes nya liv
- hittabloggen.se
- Ian Wachtmeister
- Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique
- Integrationsbloggen
- intressant.se
- Islam och islamistövervakaren
- Islamist.dk
- Islamkritisk Netværk i Folkekirken
- Jiddisch - med nya bon och nya fåglar kommer nya sånger att sjungas
- Jihad i Malmö
- Kalle Strokirks seriebibliotek och dagskommentarer
- Kent Ekeroth
- Lexilogos
- Lyckobloggen
- Magnus Orerar
- Mansförtryck och Kvinnovälde av Per Ström
- Mediemordet - Pär Lindeberg
- Merit Wager
- Mrutyuanjai Mishra - Jyllands-Posten
- Nej till feminism (m.m)
- Newsmill (på svenska)
- Norstedts Engelska Ord (gratis en-sv/sv-en)
- Occident - Thomas Nydahl
- Pappa-barn
- Pappamanualen
- Pappaombudsmannen - Arne Wirén
- Papparättsgruppen
- Pelle Billing
- Politiskt Inkorrekt
- Prisjakt
- PROSA-faglitterært tidsskrift
- Robert Spencers koran-kommentarer (på danska)
- Saknade Barns Blogg
- Salongen
- Sanningen om islam
- SD Television
- SD-kuriren
- SIOE Sverige
- SNOP, Könsstympning av pojkar i Sverige
- svenskgeografi.se
- Sverigedemokraterna i riksdagen - ja tack! is on Facebook
- Take a pen! (på svenska)
- Tanja Bergkvist
- Ted Ekeroth
- Thoralf Alfsson
- Tokfeminismen av Birgitta Kurtén-Lindberg (pdf)
- Trykkefrihedsselskabet
- TT-kritik
- Tvärslå - nordisk ordbok
- Uppsatser.se
- Urban Johansson
- Vit medelålders man
- Väljarsympatier för Sverigedemokraterna
- Vårdnads och umgängeslagar - Mikael Karlsson
Statcounter
Truth in the Middle East