Friday, 14 December 2007

Cool War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 2

Part 2.


The second strand of the cool war is the political/propaganda war, which we are also losing. Whether this is this because our ruling elites are terrified of Islamic aggression, harbour a loathing of the West bordering on the suicidal, or exhibit ignorance verging on the criminally negligent is not completely clear at the present moment, but may yet be discovered at some future Nuremberg style war trials.

As “The Religion Of Peace” bombs, beheads, maims, murders and rapes it’s way around the globe, the citizens of the West find themselves inhabiting some sort of parallel universe where the daily evidence placed before their eyes is flatly contradicted by their own liberal ruling elites. Western politicians appear to have appraised the situation and made a decision, based on short-term political expediency, to side with an alien culture that promises violence rather than their own indigenous people, who peacefully – to date - accept pretty much anything.

The attempt by Western liberals to portray Islam as the religion of peace is nothing short of pathological. In a sane world this would not be possible, but the West is no longer sane and this is the message promulgated by our political, media and educational establishments.

The Muslim radicals, acutely aware of what would happen if Christians emigrated en-mass to say, Saudi Arabia, and behaved as they themselves do in the West, can only rub their eyes in amazed disbelief at not only what they are able to get away with, but the subsequent debased reaction from their victims, manifested in the cringing appeasement of Western elites as they apologise for their wicked existence and prostrate themselves before Allah.

Prostrate themselves before Allah! What a typical example of reactionary, right wing, racist hysteria the liberal/left will shriek, but how does one explain the following?

When Islamic terrorists blow us up in skyscrapers, trains, metros and buses, the ruling elites immediate response is to ask what wrongs the West must surely have perpetrated in order to attract such animosity. If no particular wrong can be found, our politicians will try to explain it away as the result of poverty and oppression, and should that prove to be false, then some past act of Christian aggression from the 11th century, or the full moon, or Europe’s dreary weather, or anything, simply anything, save the one simple, unpalatable truth: Jihad for the sake of Allah in pursuit of the Global Caliphate.

After 9/11, the FBI asked the terrorist linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to provide "sensitivity training" for their agents, whilst in the wake of the 7/7 transport bombings in London, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were asked to help draft the new anti-terror laws, which included the notification of Muslim communities prior to any police raids, the requirement by the police to remove their shoes and socks before entering a Muslim house, times when they could and could not carry out said raids, and the stipulation that police dogs were strictly “canina non grata.”

In France, the Muslim street riots of 2005 led to French politicians promising more money for the banlieus and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the Sharia courts, the honour killings and the polygamy carried out within them. In Belgium, native socialist sympathisers have allied themselves with Islam and now politically dominate Brussels, where they use this political clout to ban demonstrations protesting Islam’s growing political control in Europe.
In Holland, 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner had no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it was done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

In Spain the Madrid train bombings ushered in a new era of dhimmified government more in tune with Islam’s demands and in Britain, after yet another transit bombing by the religion of peace, Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, immediately set up a committee to advise and “reassure” Muslims on the “Islamophobic” backlash (which never materialised) and said: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love."

The legislation emanating from the European Court Of Human Rights has meant terrorists wanted for questioning in Egypt and Syria are allowed to remain free in Britain, lest they be tortured if their extradition were granted, whilst Oriana Fallaci, whose passionate love for Italy and democracy was proven in her resistance against Mussolini’s fascist state, was forced to die in exile in America, even as the Italian courts pressed for her extradition to face charges contravening EU laws on racism and xenophobia.

Her crime? She wrote two deeply moving books, The Rage And The Pride and The Force of Reason, lamenting the death of her beloved Italy and it’s replacement by resurgent Islam. If she had sought refuge in any EU country, she would have been forcibly extradited by Europol under another new EU law, The European Arrest Warrant, and tried by Eurojust, who along with Europol now possess powers that override those of nation states; their personnel also covered by diplomatic immunity. These people were not fit to wait on her table; the idea that she had to flee them is obscene.

When Jewish graveyards were desecrated in France and Germany a few years ago, the EU instigated a report, assuming it was the work of the Neo-Nazi “right”. When it turned out, all too predictably, to be the work of the followers of Muhammed, the report was quietly shelved and replaced with one six months later, exonerating the Muslims. Or to use Oriana Fallaci’s words, “the sons of Allah.”

When investigations (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 2005. No link) suggested that some 2,000 young Muslims – annually - attend terrorist training camps in Britain for unarmed combat training, the politicians and media tell us that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who wish us harm, a lie countered by Daniel Pipes who has a web page devoted to surveys revealing the true extent of support for radical Islam. The politicians and the media, who prefer to call Pipes an extremist, ignore this site.

The manipulative tactics of EU politicians do not stop at mere misrepresentation; they also use their new laws to curtail free speech. The rights of Freedom Of Assembly, and Freedom Of Expression, as ordained by the EU, do not hold up to close inspection. The attempt to hold a demonstration in Brussels on 9/11 2007 was thwarted lest our freedom of expression interfere with Islam’s freedom not hear it. Terry Davis, the socialist Secretary General of The Council of Europe, put out the following press release:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

One cannot pick and choose freedom of speech, it either exists, in which case one lives in a democracy, or it does not, and one does not. Islam is not simply a religion; it is also a political ideology. The EU has therefore made the protest of a political movement illegal. This is totalitarianism.

When Nick Griffin of the BNP predicted - before the London transport bombings of 7/7 - that Britain would be attacked, that the terrorists would be home grown “British boys” and that Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith,” he was prosecuted and tried not once but twice in an attempt to jail him for inciting racial hatred. When he was found not guilty, the government’s response, at the behest of Muslim leaders, was to bring in a new law, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which they could be more confident of jailing him the next time he correctly predicted a terrorist attack and accused Islam of being wicked and nasty.

Contrast this with the surreal antics of the British police when radical imams were exposed calling for the overthrow of the West in Channel 4’s undercover dispatches program. The immediate response of the police was not to prosecute the imams for sedition and incitement to racial hatred, but the makers of the program themselves! By drawing attention to genuine racial and religious hatred, Channel 4 was accused of inciting racial hatred. This is more than merely bizarre; this is insane.

To date, not one of the Islamic preachers has been tried and prosecuted, despite calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the beating of women and the subjugation of the infidel kuffir. A BNP member calling for the death of “niggers” would quite rightly be arrested and prosecuted, whilst I, as a white European Christian “kuffir,” can be abused in a similar vein with impunity. This situation is fast becoming intolerable.

When Muslim radicals see this craven appeasement they become, quite naturally, emboldened. Despite being a significant minority, they are aware that they can punch well above their weight, which in Britain now means pushing for Sharia schools and a semi Sharia state.

In February 2007, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a 72 page manifesto demanding that British schools adopt Islamic guidelines. These included pretty much everything you would expect of a school in Saudi Arabia, including veils for ALL female students, full-length swimming costumes for boys, and separate wash areas for Muslims. The report, which was available at the MCB website has since mysteriously disappeared.

Dr Bari, the Secretary General of the MCB, also thinks the British should adopt arranged marriage, recruit 3,000 Muslim policemen in London to “restore trust,” attend Muslim institutions, stop drinking and gambling and accept Muslim dress codes, saying: “That is another thing the British should learn from us, modesty is attractive.”

If Europeans try to resist further Muslim immigration, they are liable to fall foul of being labelled xenophobic, which under EU laws can carry a prison term of up to three years. If the native British resist the MCB’s ongoing Islamisation of their country then they could, in Bari’s words, only be compared to Nazi Germany. In other words: Peace On Our Terms, as prescribed by Islam and the EU.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic movement banned in Middle-Eastern countries and dedicated to bringing about a global Islamic Caliphate, was supposed to be banned by the British government in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. It has not, and one if it’s leaders actually works in the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Needless to say, membership of the BNP would preclude you from such a position.

Whilst we are busy denying our culture, Islam is busy promoting theirs. If they run into difficulties, a simple accusation of racism tends to make any potential resistance disappear, whilst our appeasement, increasingly mandated by legal requirement, is one part of our culture that Islam has no problem interacting with. The result of their aggression, combined with their tactical awareness of how to use our appeasing liberalism against ourselves, has bought them a great many political concessions, where our culture and our civilisation is forced to bow to theirs.

Halal food is served in many public institutions, swimming baths have Muslim only sessions, crosses are removed from public areas, Christmas is downplayed lest it upset Muslim sensibilities, the Holocaust is dropped from school curriculum’s’ as it opposes the Holocaust denial that Muslim children are taught at home and in the mosques. The police drastically lower their entry standards in order to fill racial quotas and then stand idly by as street preaching imams promote death and destruction to the West, spurred into activity on occasion only to arrest members of the native population who heckle or attempt to take photographs.

The EU passes laws criminalizing the indigenous population if they speak out, backed up by national governments that do the same. The police arrest us on the slightest pretext yet ignore genuine hatred emanating from Islamic preachers, and our politicians appear to have tacitly accepted that peace can only be bought off via our appeasement. Living in Europe is becoming a wholly surreal experience that defies logic and reason as we slowly sink into state enforced Dhimmitude.

The various councils, parliaments, brotherhoods and associations, all prefixed by “Muslim” are driven more by political ambition than religious empathy, and their advance is both remorseless and relentless. The political parties representing the indigenous peoples of the West are retreating, apologising, appeasing and betraying. We are not just losing the political war. We are being annihilated.

To be continued in part three: The Propaganda War.

Cool - War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 1

Part 1.

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but - as an added bonus - also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this; notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself - to name but a few.

In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei” the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” - manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism - inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.

The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”


The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching it’s peak in the attitude of not only the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.

On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.

Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.

Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of Aids victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!”

The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.

No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.”

Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam - a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?

But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.

Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.

The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to "unlearn" racism, young Westerners’ have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history – or more succinctly, the very essence of their being - is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.

This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed - as they say they are - of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.

Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.

As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged - nee forced - to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with it’s inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”

Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:

‘There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.”

Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:

“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable – providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”

Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”

This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West - but it gets worse. When little boys’ rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.

This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it - “girly men” - little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.

As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.

If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,” but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.

One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.

A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result - for the first time in the history of womankind - we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.

Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West - which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.

Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men - brainwashed into Dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it - have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word – extinction.

If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types – if there are any left – for their defence.

And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.

It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.

What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WW11, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women and blow them up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

As a final note; what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.

To be continued.

I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. This may yet run to three or four articles.

The Coming Third World War

When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history.

Fukuyama was drawing on Winston Churchill, who stated: “The history of man is war” thus allowing Fukuyama to propose that a future consisting of perpetual peace meant an end to history itself, history being simply a narrative of warfare, conquest and re-conquest, rather than which queen succeeded which king and on which date.

This idea that warfare within the west is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are, on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama failed to realise however, was that the ingredient for yet another war to end all wars, was already in place. The cultural clashes between fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another culture that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures - Islam.

Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5 and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.

The first of these, self evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy; such an entity being radical Islam, a relatively small component of Islam overall. Possibly so, but this rather misses the point that Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed.

The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us, it is because Islam wishes to take us over. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being, that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.

The fact that it is radical Islam as opposed to moderate Islam is immaterial. In WW11 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races/religions, the pieties of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.

The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and voluntarily, never will be.

And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.

Despite the best efforts of the vast, state funded, race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculteralist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.

When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” and in the case of France “low level civil war” they speak volumes of our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not, indeed, apparently cannot co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?

Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.

Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in part 1 of a recent article. Within twenty years we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result; collision circa 2025 or earlier, depending on their speed.

And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2007 we have the only ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically – and literally - exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario.

This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:

“Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…”

Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus’. History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.

Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of 10 million.

“In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Yugoslavia was a small country, the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran or Syria possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?

Unlike the First World War, given our nuclear weapons, this really could be the war to end to all wars.

Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history and present day reality around the non-Western world, wrong?

Even the most vacuous multiculteralist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% - is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”

The completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Principe, provided the spark that ignited the First World War, when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little known town of Sarajevo on June 28th 1914.

In the Europe of 2007 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed. Will it be a Dwayne Sproat or an Achmed Al-bubba, acting as the present day Gavrilo Principe, who sparks it?

A Brussels Perspective

There has been a great deal of electronic ink spilled over the banning of SIOE’s proposed demonstration on September 11 in Brussels. The on-off-on again situation seems fairly complicated, but a few simple questions need to be asked.

The first is this:

Does SIOE have a legitimate claim in their belief that the traditional culture of Europe is being detrimentally undermined in favour of the non-secular culture of Islam?

Ten years ago, little was heard of Islam in Europe. Today, we can read endless proven stories of segregated swimming pools, Halal meat served in public institutions, religious studies in schools operating with an anti-Christian and pro-Islamic bias, areas of European cities operating under Islamic law, a blind eye turned to polygamy and police forces failing to uphold the law of the land for fear of violence, choosing instead to clamp down on indigenous Europeans who speak out.

Whilst all of this is happening, Saudi Arabia is pumping billions of dollars into the building of Mosques within which imams call for the overthrow of the democratic West, to be replaced by a global Islamic Caliphate. Their propaganda is eagerly absorbed. 40% of Muslims in Britain wish to see their adopted country run under Sharia law.

Princeton History professor, Bernard Lewis, believes that the demographic imbalance between Muslims and indigenous Europeans will bring about an Islamic Europe this century; a scenario admitted by European leaders such as Swedish integration minister Jens Orback, who has stated, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

All of the above is evidence of an existing and accelerating Islamisation of Europe.

SIOE’s claim is therefore legitimate.

Is SIOE a legitimate movement?

SIOE is a legal entity. It’s website carries no inflammatory or racist remarks, it does not call for an end to Muslim immigration, nor the deportation of Muslims from Europe. It exists, in it’s own words, “to combat the overt and covert expansion of Islam (not Muslims) in Europe,” and condemns racism as “the lowest form of human stupidity.” It has no history of violence or incitement to racial hatred and has made no suggestion that this will change in the future.

SIOE is therefore a legitimate movement.

Does mayor Thielemans have a legitimate cause for banning the demonstration?

The reasons he has given to date are:

One: The local Muslim community in Brussels will be offended by the presence of SIOE and may react violently.

Two: That SIOE and it’s supporters, by their mere presence in Brussels, will contravene Belgian and European Union law regarding incitement to racial hatred, as laid down by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

In argument of his first reason, mayor Thielemans can only turn down a march, based on security reasons, if the local police had so advised him. As the police gave their permission, mayor Thielemans has gone beyond the remit of his office.

As regards his second reason, both Belgian and EU law allow the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. There is no law or precedent that allows Thielemans to pre-judge the actions of a peacefully planned demonstration, especially if it’s organisers have no history of violence.

If any instances of incitement to racial hatred were shown on the day, then those individuals should be arrested, and if the organisers overtly supported those arrested, then the march should be disbanded.

But that can only happen on the day. It cannot be pre-judged.

Both reasons are therefore illegitimate.

To sum up, a legitimate body (SIOE) in pursuance of a legitimate belief, having followed the correct legal procedures, have now illegitimately been denied their citizens right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

As such, under Belgian and EU law, the human rights of the SIOE and it’s thousands of supporters have been illegally violated.

I would therefore make the following suggestion:

A Class Action lawsuit be filed on behalf of SIOE and its supporters at the European Court of Human Rights, against mayor Thielemans and the Belgian City Council, in the amount of one hundred million Euros.

And yes, I am serious.

Democratic Europe R.I.P.

It was not just the events taking place in Brussels on September 11 2007 that indicated the end of democracy in Europe. Rather, the manhandling and arrest of passive, besuited, middle aged men was simply the final statement - after a long history of incremental authoritarianism - by our ruling socialist elites that a new totalitarian order now controls an entire continent.

What took place yesterday should be viewed from several different angles. To fundamental Islam it was a great fillip to their dream of a global caliphate, to the supporters of SIOE it was not the success we had hoped for, and to the socialists it was a comprehensive victory.

The mainstream media largely ignored the event. The few outlets that did report on it remarked only that a handful of far-right activists had been arrested at an anti-Islam demonstration. The BBC did not think such an event even warranted television coverage, relegating the story to its web site. Here in Britain, the Times, Telegraph and Mail failed to report on it at all.

Journalism appears to have no eye for a story these days. The events of yesterday were not - as the MSM have implied - simply about a few right-wing wackos with an inbuilt hatred of the religion of peace; it was far more importantly about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or more succinctly, democracy.

And democracy was trampled on in Brussels yesterday. In the heart of the European Union’s capital city, democracy was trashed, abused and violated. The MSM’s response, rather predictably, was to ignore it or spin it to the detriment of those who took part.

The socialists, leftists, liberals, call them what you may, will be rubbing their hands in glee today. They have silenced those who disagree with their ideology through a mixture of intimidation, smear, media blackout, and have done so in a totalitarian manner reminiscent of the Nazis or the Communists.

To put yesterdays events into perspective let us look at some unarguable facts. SIOE and Vlaams Belang are legally established movements operating within a democracy. The reason for their demonstration may not have been to the taste of our European political elites, but the gradual erosion of Europe’s culture and heritage in the face of Islamic expansion is a reality nonetheless. In a democracy, a legitimate movement with legitimate concerns should be allowed to make those grievances known in a public manner.

The demonstration was banned under the mischievous pretence of provoking a violent Muslim reaction and/or its supporters were in contravention of European laws pertaining to racism and xenophobia. This ban was subsequently upheld at the appeal court.

I have read some comments suggesting that if the march was banned then it is no surprise that arrests were made. This is true, but it rather misses the point that if a differing political viewpoint can be criminalised in the Europe of 2007, then democracy is over, dead, ceased to exist, shuffled of this mortal coil. Europe is an ex-democracy.

The argument that one cannot legally protest may carry some weight - in certain instances - in a democracy. A demonstration in favour of executing homosexuals, Jews and adulterous women should have arguments against it, but I do not think it should necessarily be banned. If such truly revolting people wish to draw attention to themselves, then so be it. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

This was not the case yesterday. Vlaams Belang and SIOE exist to counter such barbarous ideology. That the socialist elites find such an idea repugnant speaks volumes about their own moral consciousness, but repugnant ideas do not a justified ban make. The demonstration was banned because our rulers do not like our political viewpoint. No more and no less. This should not happen in a democracy and cannot possibly be upheld in a court of law unless that court is totalitarian in nature.

But happen it did. Ergo, Europe is no longer democratic. One cannot have partial freedom of expression. It is all or nothing, pace Voltaire. It is the primary function of a democracy and without it no society can be called democratic.

I know I am repeating myself, but I cannot make this point strongly enough: A legitimate movement with a legitimate grievance was illegitimately but legally banned by a politically motivated mayor and a politically motivated court, after which black clad, politicised state enforcers, armed with water cannons, batons and dogs, arrested and dispersed legitimate demonstrators because they held a differing political viewpoint.

This was the story that our lazy, ineffectual MSM missed yesterday. Equipped with helicopters, cameras, satellite feeds, reporters and a vast network of contacts they missed the emergence of a totalitarian Europe. And make no mistake about it, the events leading up to, and of, yesterday, was just that. On September 11th 2007 Europe became a totalitarian dictatorship.

Sensationalist you think? Can one really argue that Europe, run by unelected Marxists and ex-Communists, has failed to make fully clear their determination to disallow, by any means possible, democratic opposition to their vision of some unprecedented multicultural utopia in their unholy alliance with Islam, a political creed which hates Western civilisation almost as much as our rulers themselves?

To any liberal readers who think this is one of my usual right wing rants, consider the following press release statement from socialist Terry Davis, the Secretary General of The Council of Europe:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

In other words, lie back and think of Europe as Islamisation proceeds apace. If you try to resist, via your Citizens Human Rights, we will criminalize you. You may only have freedom of speech as long as it fits into the caveats we have built into the constitution.

So, if we can agree that Europe is now totalitarian, where does this leave us? Well, there are dictatorships and there are dictatorships. If a peculiar interest in train timetables and invading far flung African countries was your bag, then Mussolini was a relatively benign sort of chap to rule your country. In post WW1 Germany, a political, social and economic madhouse, then even Adolf Hitler ticked a few boxes. Where it led them however, we know only too well.

Both of the aforementioned dictators had mass support (not majority, but mass nevertheless) from their indigenous people, both rebuilt their economies before total power went to their heads, and both acted, initially, in the interests of their historical culture, heritage and people. When I say that at least they started out on the right foot, I am in no way defending them. I simply point out the facts.

The reason for doing so will become apparent. If Islam, (or radical Islam if you are reality deficient) were compared to any previous ideology, then it could only be compared to the Nazis. Both wished/wish to establish a global empire, eradicate the Jews, eradicate the homosexuals, thought women fit only for bearing children, cooking and church, brooked no opposition to their ideology, indeed seemed to positively enjoy murdering it’s apostates, and worshipped The Glorious Leader, be he the Fuhrer or the Prophet.

And into that pot we can add Communism, built on the ideal of supposed egalitarianism, it resulted in genocide, economic failure and environmental, social and spiritual devastation.
Now, to the well-balanced mind, such ideologies should be avoided like the plague, but the liberal/left appear to have embraced them both. The European Union is run by Communist manqué’s and they are utilising Europe’s new Nazi Party, Islam, to further their dream of absolute power.

Europeans today however are not living in the shattered economies and societies that bought Hitler and Mussolini to power. We live in unprecedented wealth and comfort; we have no need of totalitarianism to solve our economic problems and we certainly have no need for a totalitarian regime to actively bring about future social problems.

Our situation today is almost mind boggling in its perversity. A peaceful – a peace that came at the expense of millions of dead – society that wishes only to be left alone, has had an alien culture undemocratically inflicted upon us and an alien culture that is unrepentantly vociferous in its call for our overthrow and subjugation.

This culture of Islam - Europe’s new Nazi party - is growing as we are shrinking and poses a clear and present danger to our children and grandchildren. It is genocidal in its ambitions, which effectively means that indigenous Europeans would, if Islam came to power, be the new Jews of Hitler’s Germany. Each and every one of us; homosexual and heterosexual, feminist and housewife, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, agnostic or atheist, conservative or liberal, black or white.

And they are aided and abetted by Europe’s new Communists - albeit with a love of capitalist money in their own pockets - the European Union and their apparatchiks, who outlaw public displays of unease about our children’s future via totalitarian means.

Has it really come to this? The devils pact of Islamism and Communism are now the dictatorial rulers of Europe? Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mussolini were guilty of not only destroying the lives of their enemies; they ultimately destroyed those they purported to represent. Europeans are now faced with the astonishing and terrifying prospect of being dictatorially controlled as an enemy of the state, not it’s friend, and when we see what totalitarian regimes do to their friends, let alone their enemies, we should be extremely, if not obsessively, concerned.

So what can we do? Firstly, we must play our rulers at their own game. The EU is obsessed with the varied doctrines of tolerance, feminism, racial prejudice, equality and Human Rights, and this is how we must fight them if we are to make any discernable difference to our future.

I have spoken to many people who feel that “Stop The Islamisation Of Europe” is a provocative banner that smacks of racial/religious intolerance. They are foolish and naive, but they are probably in the majority in our brainwashed isles. We must appeal to the majority.

If European socialist leaders can ban a demonstration on the grounds of racism and xenophobia, then we will have to adjust to the fact that if such marches go ahead, they will receive little public support, and should therefore be discontinued.

Demonstrations should not take place on any September 11th’s and certainly not on weekdays, firstly to counteract any bans, and secondly to attract more numbers.

The next demonstration should be organised by a movement called “For A Democratic Europe” or something along those lines. Its primary aim should be about freedom of speech and no mention should be made in advance of Islam. On the day, under the name of free speech, the supporters could carry banners reading “Democracy Not Theocracy” - “No To Honour Killings” – “We Disagree With Colonisation Everywhere” – “Is The EU Totalitarian” – “Free Speech For Europeans” – “Equal Rights For Muslim Women” – “Homosexual Rights Before Religion” etc etc.

What happened yesterday played into the totalitarian’s hands. Vlaams Belang should not have been in attendance, not because they are of the evil right, but because they have already been tainted by the liberal media. Also, SIOE’s banner and ideology was used against us, causing both the ban and a cleverly worded threat of retaliatory violence, which put many people off. Or at least I can only hope that was the reason for the low turnout.

This is not some liberal, non-confrontational desire to dilute our message. We must get our message out and this is the only way of doing it. I submit the idea of such a feeble demonstration for two reasons. Firstly, if we can advance our cause through mass demonstrations that circumnavigate the EU dictators then that is at least a start.

If we cannot, and I suspect that we cannot, then we will know where we stand. The era of men in suits debating our future will have come to a close. We will be alone, abandoned by our traditional leaders and without a new leader of our own. But that is easily remedied. Once we know what we need to do, then we will do it and until we are forced to admit that this is our final recourse, it will be one we ignore. When the written word, speech and the democratic process can no longer be relied upon to bring about change, then words will be replaced with physical deeds.

We didn’t start this, but by sheer weight of numbers we can finish it. As of yesterday, European politics was bought down to the level of the Reds V the Brownshirts. There are no Brownshirts as yet, but there are potentially millions of us. Standing in our way are a few thousand socialists, who, not known for their bravery, will become even fewer when they realise what they have unleashed against themselves.

Do these socialist lunatics have any idea of our violent history? They appear to betting that we will not fight for territory, religion or culture. On this they are possibly right, but we will, surely, fight for our children. The idea that a continent of half a billion people will allow a handful of Communist manqué’s, in alliance with a very small minority (today) of bearded Nazis, to dictatorially browbeat us into submission, when we have the unarguable knowledge that our failure to retaliate will wreak destruction upon our children and grandchildren is simply too fantastical to possibly be true.

Isn’t it?