7 posts tagged “europe”
Here are some interesting thoughts on the Islamization of Europe by Daniel Pipes. Hopefully to inspire you to read the entire article, I think a good summation of Pipes’ point is this: Europe will voluntarily slip into Islamization or as Sharia Law confronts European Egalitarianism, civil war or civil wars will break out across European lands that have significant Mohammedan populations.
Just at the top of my head this would include most of Western Europe (e.g. Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and so on) and Russia.
Even though this essay is about a potential Eurabia, it would behoove America, Canada and Australia to take a long look at what a non-Western Culture can do to society.
JRH 4/15/08
Fjordman is a noted European blogger that is my kind of guy for he is an expert on radical Islam and its agenda to infiltrate as a Fifth Column into Western Culture (meaning Europe and America).
Think-Israel has recently posted one of Fjordman’s essays that originally were written in 2006 about the Muslim Brotherhood and its agenda of infiltration.
I am delighted to receive Think-Israel’s E-Newsletter which has made me aware of Fjordman’s excellent concise history of the Muslim Brotherhood.
JRH 3/13/08
Here is a balanced political self-examination of America from the Hoover Institution. It steps on some toes and yet explains why some anti-Americanism is unjustified. It is a fascinating read.
JRH 3/12/08
Thanks to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), I suspect America and Israel may have to act alone to prevent nuclear WMD from being made in Iran.
The IAEA report recently released claims that Iran is “generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history”.
Those brief words alone enable Russia who is aiding in building nuclear plants and China who is a major arms dealer, to say: “I told you so.”
Europe is incredibly tied to Iranian oil and will think long and hard to accommodate sanctions along with America. Iran could make the claim that Bush has it wrong again about WMD, because he found none in Iraq.
I guess I am of the rare group that believes it is better to be safe than sorry. The kind of uranium being enriched in Iran is weapons grade and that is confirmed. If America acquiesces to Iran becoming a nuclear power in the Middle East then nations that can afford to do so will be forced to seek nuclear WMD to counter Iran’s hegemonic designs. The two nations I have in mind are Wahhabi dominated Saudi Arabia and Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated Egypt.
A nuclear race far more dangerous than the Cold War days will occur. Middle Eastern nuclear proliferation will be dangerous because Mohammedans are crazy suicidal and the old Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine will not faze them. The MAD doctrine was the code that definite enemies America led NATO versus the Soviet Block (and emerging Red China) lived by in order not to launch nuclear attacks.
The MAD doctrine implies if one nation (or nations) launch a nuclear missile strike then the retaliation button will be pushed before the WMD strike. Thus both sides are obliterated in a thermonuclear holocaust.
As competitive as free market capitalistic democratic Federalism and Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist Communism were, neither side felt an ideology was total obliteration.
Does anyone think the fear of annihilation exists in homicidal suicidal Mohammedan nations? Well I don’t!
Apparently in Italy the Left and homosexuals are so intent in silencing Christian morality that Roman Catholic Prelates need bodyguards to minister in Church.
Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco is the head of the Conference of Bishops in Italy. He has taken a public stand against same sex marriages. The Archbishop comprehends the damage to morality that would occur if homosexuality is “mainstreamed” into Western culture.
In this is an example that Christianity is being attacked by what I believe is the majority view in that continent: Secular Humanism.
Secular Humanism pervasively is prepared to persecute with violence. The violence is outside the agenda of the European governments (so far), yet it is the governments that stand behind Secular Humanism.
I am afraid I am not as articulate as I should be, therefore when I find powerful writing that exactly expresses my thoughts I become extremely excited.
This is for all my Liberal friends (probably not) that wish to be subservient to collective socialism and radical Mohammedanism:
*********************************************************************
Europe's Anti-American Blinders
By Pamela Meister
January 19, 2007
needs to hate us for its own reasons having nothing to do with American behavior. In an essay adapted from his forthcoming book Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America, Andrei S. Markovits writes:
Anti-Americanism has already commenced to forge a concrete, emotionally experienced - as opposed to intellectually constructed - European identity, in which Swedes and Greeks, Finns and Italians are helped to experience their still-frail emotive commonality not as "anti-Americans" but as Europeans, which at this stage constitutes one sole thing: that they are "non-Americans."
In other words, Europeans are building a common society not as Europeans, but as non-Americans, much in the way that John Kerry ran for president in 2004 - not on any solid Democratic plan, but as a non-George Bush.
As John Kerry lost his 2004 presidential bid, will Europeans fail in their bid to become a solid European community?
Markovits is correct in saying that the unification of is a very ambitious political project. Creating a cohesive community out of nearly 30 different countries (with others hoping to be accepted into the fold) can be likened to searching through your refrigerator and throwing various ingredients into a casserole dish, popping it into the oven, and hoping the combination will make a delicious and nutritious entrée.
For almost the entirety of their histories, various European countries have been at one another's throats: invading, conquering, and overthrowing one another. The concept of a European Union (EU) has only been in existence for the past fifty years or so. It's no surprise that the road to unification has not been a smooth one.
For example: although it has been an EU member since 1973, has yet to give up its currency, the pound (£,) for the euro (€), which was launched in 2002. Part of the reason is that many influential British business concerns feel that the independent Bank of England is helping to contribute to 's lower unemployment and higher productivity than its EU counterparts, and that a move to the euro would prove unstable. And in 2005, rejected the newly-crafted EU constitution, which would further erase political and economic borders among the sister states. As is a charter member of the EU, this was considered a big blow by those who wish for to the capital city of the European continent. The constitution would allow the central EU government to set foreign policy, regulate housing, and more.
The main reasons for the formation of the EU were political and financial: to heal the region after two devastating world wars and to create an economy that could rival that of the . Yet by relying on anti-Americanism as the mortar for their dream state as Markovits posits, the European chattering classes paper over many of the real problems they face: a climbing crime rate, high unemployment, escalating taxes to pay for endless social programs, and rising problems with radical Islam.
It's convenient indeed to point fingers at and blame her for all the problems in the world. Americans are blamed for a myriad of issues, from global warming to cultural decay. As Jean Francois-Revel puts it:
The fundamental role of anti-Americanism in Europe in general, and particularly among those on the Left, is to absolve themselves of their own moral failings and intellectual errors by heaping them onto the monster scapegoat, the United States of America. For stupidity and bloodshed to vanish from Europe, the must be identified as the singular threat to democracy (contrary to every lesson of actual history). Thus, during the Cold War, it was dogma among Europeans from Sweden to Sicily, from Athens to Paris, that the "imperialistic" power was America, even though it was the USSR that annexed Eastern Europe, made satellites out of several African countries, and invaded Afghanistan, even though it was the People's Republic of China that marched into Tibet, attacked South Korea, and subjugated three Indochinese countries. A similar dynamic applies today in the war on terror.
After a short "we are all Americans now" moment in the aftermath of 9/11, Europeans quickly went back to criticizing , this time for daring to buck world opinion by invading to topple the evil regime of Saddam Hussein. No matter that Hussein had consistently defied the UN and its resolutions, which many Europeans (and a distressing number of Americans) feel should be the be all and end all of world policy. No matter that, in the days and months following 9/11, it was folly to ignore the despotic ruler of an unstable country who was thought by many (including Jacques Chirac) to have WMDs. No matter that Saddam Hussein was known to have used such weapons, in the form of nerve gas, on his own citizens.
America decided to do something about it, so the knee-jerk reaction of Europeans was to condemn it.
Twice in the twentieth century, nearly committed suicide. Both times Americans jumped in to bail them out, at huge personal and national cost, something which must eat at their psyche - the colonial upstarts who dared to create a new world had to come to the aid of the old. Those classless, cultureless, money-grubbing Americans had to go in and do a managed intervention, keeping Europeans safe from themselves and a now-collapsed Soviet threat. (That American money, while considered to be dirty capitalist spoils, also comes in handy, too.) Guilt in their complicity in the mass murder of European Jews who contributed so much to their culture and the world at large - Albert Einstein, Marc Chagall, and Niels Bohr, to name a few - keeps them from admitting to the fact that the bias is still there, ready to boil over at any moment. 's steadfast support of , therefore, is another bone of contention.
Europeans, weary after centuries of warfare, want to believe in utopia. So their governments created cradle to grave social programs to keep the people happy, to keep them from asking too many questions. In a sense, not much has changed since the days of the lord and serf. They downsized their militaries, putting all their stock in diplomatic solutions, forgetting their past success with negotiations with Hitler. Criticizing American policies and American missteps allows them to forget their own. Squealing about the "torture" of terrorist detainees at Abu Ghraib allows the French to ignore their alleged involvement in the killing spree, in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died in only 100 days. It allows the Dutch to bestow honors to troops who failed to protect nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys, killed by Serb forces that overran Srebrenica in July of 1995. And Belgian and Italian soldiers, sent to protect under the umbrella of the U.N. in the late 1990s, were said to have raped and tortured those wretched people - facing only fines and dishonorable discharges for their crimes.
Radical Islam is a growing threat. Rather than assimilate, many Muslims have chosen to keep to themselves. Until a few years ago, it didn't seem to pose much of a problem, as native Europeans preferred to think of the immigrants as second-class citizens. The latest of many unpleasant reminders that all is not well is 's Channel 4 broadcast special entitled Undercover Mosque, showing that the moderate face of Islam in shields a darker, more sinister purpose: that of jihad and the establishment of an Islamic state.
By going into and , is trying to contain the menace of radical Islam. Blinded by their burgeoning disdain for Americans, Europeans either cannot or will not acknowledge this. And they ignore radical Islam in their own backyard at their own peril.
Anti-Americanism may be the glue that holds the EU together in its infancy. That glue, however, is a toxic substance. Like the schoolyard bully who seeks to make himself feel better by putting others down, Europeans continue to sneer at and heap scorn on the descendants of their own outcasts, who fled across the in the hopes of a better life. They accuse the of imperialism and greed in the shadows of their own collapsed empires and struggling economies. The chattering classes demand an end to American world dominance.
Thus the question begs to be asked: if withdraws from the world stage, who will fill the void?
Pamela Meister writes about politics and world events on her blog. She can be contacted here.
© American Thinker 2007
Victor Davis Hanson surmises America has two choices concerning Iraq and Afghanistan:
1. … [W]e can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing - tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.
2. American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price - all broadcast live on the evening news. (Hanson)
Basically Hanson is saying one path is easy but could lead to increased antagonism from Islamofascist terrorists. The other path is hard yet if successful, could lead to further American soldiers dieing but aiding in a transformation of an economic poverty structure wrapped around despotic rule.
The first option is of little gamble and risk yet would perpetuate a hatred of the West and continued Islamofascist influence toward Mohammedans accepting the radical version preached by Wahhabists and Twelver Shi’ites. My opinion this road will eventually lead to a global confrontation that Mohammedans cannot win due to resources, however they will be able to exact great devastation as the result of oil acquired money buying WMD capabilities.
The second path is directly abhorrent to the politically correct Left in both Europe and America, as well as a growing amount of pro-Arab Republicans. Why? It requires a gamble of long term blood, money and resources that may or may not succeed. I personally am leaning to the opinion that Western Democratic principles cannot even be accepted by a so-called moderate Mohammedanism. The absolute revulsion of anything not Mohammedan is a superiority complex programmed into their religious/civic ideology from the days of their so-called prophet.
I think the West should embark on a path that the Third World certainly would call imperialism. That is to force a form of democracy on the Middle East that Mohammedanism could live with even though it would still be repugnant to the West. A Mohammedan democracy would be a theocratic democracy in which women and non-Mohammedans would suffer a second or sub class status. However there would be a rule of law. This is the compromise the West should embark on political experimentation.
Then there is the issue of Mohammedan immigration to the West. Again, this is not a politically correct solution; however it is solution that has worked in the past to protect European culture. Mohammedans should be welcome in the West as long as they do not expect to be treated differently than Western Culture. I say Western Culture because Europe currently is more secular and humanistic and America is more religious with a leaning toward (gag) secular humanism.
Secular Humanism is as much unacceptable to Mohammedan thought as it is to the Christian Right in America. Sharia Law cannot be accepted as one rule for Mohammedans in the West while the West continues with its Western Heritage of Liberty and Rights. Eventually the West would fall to pieces into a Dark Age of lawlessness as Westerners became fed up with Mohammedans and visa-a-versa.
Sounds harsh huh? I do not about you but I am not willing to give up special privileges to Mohammedans in my nation at the hurt of my Christian heritage. And though a Secular Humanist does not see it now because of a pathetic politically correct passivism, I doubt the Left is willing to give up the agenda of a humanistic society. If the West wakes up, the Slanted Right and The Slanted Left actually have a mutual enemy: it is radical Mohammedanism.
