A Glimmer of Hope for Europe
In spite of some decades of relentless multiculturalist indoctrination and “Religion of Peace” propaganda, an “overwhelming majority” of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a major new survey revealed on January 23.
Prepared for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in collaboration with Georgetown University, “Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue” was—according to the official press release—a pioneering attempt “to provide a systematic and thorough overview of how Muslim and Western societies perceive and relate to each other at the political, social, economic and cultural levels.” In spire of their evident bias in favor of intensified dialogue, interaction, mutual understanding etc, the report’s authors admit that
majorities in populations around the world . . . share a great deal of pessimism about the state of the relationship. Among both Muslim majority and non-Muslim majority nations, the proportion who say they think the ‘other side’ is committed to better relations rarely rises above a minority of 30%.
The poll reported that “a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities,” with most non-Muslims wanting as little to do with the Muslim world as possible. Specifically referring to Britain, the study showed that political leaders who preach the benefits of open immigration were “dangerously out of touch with the public.” It reports “a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations . . . An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat.”
It is noteworthy that Muslim immigration is said to breed “a growing fear”—which implies an irrational, emotional response to a “perceived” threat, rather than a normal response stemming from experiential learning. It is on par with reporting, 75 years ago, “a growing fear among Jews of a perceived Nazi threat to their cultural identity.” The authoritative and presumably well-paid analysts advising the Davos “community” refrain from assessing the validity of this perception. They also pass no judgment on the fact that Europeans “believe” that interaction is undesirable. They choose, yet again, to present this “belief” as irrational: most Europeans reject “interaction” (a word with positive connotations) because they see it as a “threat” (a word with negative connotations denoting an emotional response).
It takes a brave man, in today’s Britain dominated by three social-democratic parties (Labour, Conservative, and Lib-Dems), to draw the obvious conclusion. Tory MP David Davies—who is now even more certain to go on lingering on the back benches—is one of them. He told the Sunday Express: “I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life. Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our language and fit in with us.” Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added:
People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a head-to-toe covering at school. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the changes being caused by immigration and politicians have been too slow to wake up to that.
The report says people have little enthusiasm for “greater understanding with Islam.” That is a sure sign that they are gaining greater understanding OF Islam. “Understanding with Islam” may happen only in those societies fortunate enough not to have any interaction with Islam.
The report also says that attempts to improve relations between Muslims living in Europe and the non-Muslim majority have been “disappointing.” That was entirely predictable, however. It is utterly impossible ab initio for pious Muslims to have normal, harmonious relations with non-Muslims, relations based on mutual respect and the acceptance of the legitimacy of non-Muslim beliefs, lifestyles, and institutions. Most Muslims in Europe live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country. Overwhelmingly they feel nothing but contempt for the liberal concept of “tolerance” and “diversity.” If not overtly hostile, their attitude to the host-society is disdainful and filled with contempt.
The Muslim response to the Davos report was a mixture of lies and distortions—the good, old taqiyya. Baroness Haleh Afshar, OBE, of York University, blamed media “hysteria” for the findings. She admitted that there is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but that is
very much driven by an uninformed media. To blame immigration is much harder because the current influx of immigrants from eastern Europe are by-and-large not Muslim. The danger is that when people are fearful of people born and bred in this country it is likely that discrimination may follow.
Presumably it would betray a discriminatory mindset to point out to the good Baroness of Heslington that all four “Yorkshire lads” who blew up themselves and 52 other people on the London Underground on July 7, 2005, were Muslims “born and bred in this country” [i.e. Britain]. But translated from taqiyya-speak into plain English, Dr. Afshar said the following:
- “Absence of trust towards Muslims” should be recognized as not only abnormal but also inherently discriminatory and therefore illegal response of non-Muslims to the Jihadist threat. Accordingly, “absence of trust” needs to be rectified by (a) an even more relentless “Religion of Peace” indoctrination; and (b) legislative criminalization.
- As a first step, further legal restraints should be imposed on media reporting of Islamic terrorism and Jihad activism, so as to counter anti-Muslim “hysteria” and turn “an uninformed media” into “well-informed,” i.e. Sharia-compliant media.
- There is no Muslim problem, but there is prejudice against immigration per se—which is equally reprehensible, and therefore worthy of .
- One task of the reformed media will be to teach the native public that Muhammads, Yusufs and Sabahuddins listening to their favorite imams in Leicester and Leeds on Friday nights are no more a threat to their way of life, or to their life itself, than Polish plumbers, Russian tycoons, or Moldovan prostitutes.
It is a sure bet that the European union nomenklatura in Brussels and its subsidiary organs in the member-countries’ nominal capitals will take Dr. Afshar’s recommendations to heart. They don’t need any prodding, having spent close to seven years since 9-11 indoctrinating their subject-populations into believing that the migration of tens of millions of Muslims into Europe and the Old Continent’s subsequent demographic shift in favor of Islamic aliens is actually a blessing that enriches the natives’ culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies.
The elite class has a number of mandatory political documents and enforcement tools to guide the enforcers, starting with the European Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on “the contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture.” A giant step forward was made a decade later, in the “General policy recommendation n° 5: Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims” issued by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. This “recommendation” could have been written by Baroness Afshar:
- It emphasized “Islam’s positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part.”
- It expressed concern that “religious intolerance towards Islam” was still strong in Europe.
- It expressed strong regret “that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat.”
- It warned that “this prejudice may manifest itself in different guises, in particular through negative general attitudes.”
The E.U. Commission Against Racism and Intolerance then came to the point, and called on the Union’s member states to adopt legally binding measures that would counter such negative tendencies. These measures, if and when applied, will effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim “affirmative action” that would far exceed some of the worst excesses of similar programs in the United States. The E.U. body call on the member countries:
- To impose sanctions in cases of discrimination on grounds of religion [i.e. to prosecute those who "inaccurately” claim that Islam may be a threat];
- To remove “unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles [i.e. planning and zoning permits, local authority and neighborhood approvals] to the construction of sufficient numbers of appropriate places of worship for the practice of Islam” [i.e. as many mosques as Muslims want, where they want them, of whatever size, shape, or form];
- To ensure that public institutions make provision in their everyday practice for cultural and other requirements of the Muslim community [i.e. taxpayer-funded prayer rooms facing Mecca and foot baths in state schools, public offices, hospitals, prisons, barracks . . . ];
- To prevent discrimination on religious grounds regarding access to citizenship [i.e. to speed up naturalization of Muslims resident in Europe regardless of an EU country’s formal requirements, such as taking an oath of allegiance odious to Muslims];
- To eliminate any discrimination on grounds religion in access to education [i.e. allow hijabs and burqas in taxpayer-funded classrooms . . . where crosses are banned];
- To legislate against religious discrimination in employment and at the workplace [i.e. set aside a quota of positions that will be filled by Muslims regardless of ability or of the availability of better qualified non-Muslim candidates];
- To encourage employers to devise and implement “codes of conduct” to combat religious discrimination and “to work towards the goal of workplaces representative of the diversity of the society in question” [i.e. fire or demote non-Muslim employees who see Islam as a threat, and introduce “affirmative action” programs for Muslims];
- To prevent “discrimination of Muslims connected with social exclusion” [which means inviting them to company picnics, and instructing employees to bring them to parties and social events, provided—of course—that no alcohol or pork are served, and that men and women are rigorously segregated];
- To pay special attention to the situation of Muslim women “who may suffer both from discrimination against women in general and that against Muslims” [but paying attention to their Kuranically-mandated abuse by their husbands is verboten];
- To modify curricula to prevent “distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history” and “portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace” [which is already happening in Britain, with Muslim activists approving state school textbooks dealing with Islam];
- To ensure that religious instruction in schools respects cultural pluralism and make provision for teacher training to this effect;
- To raise awareness among the population of those areas where particular care is needed to avoid social and cultural conflict [i.e. more vigorous indoctrination];
- To encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias [again, pure Dr. Afshar];
- To provide for the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of all measures to combat intolerance and discrimination against Muslims [Orwell].
The diligence with which individual E.U. member countries translate this appalling list into national legislation, and the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Union, are being tracked by the Vienna-based European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The Centre routinely refers to “institutional Islamophobia” as an inherent social and cultural sickness of most European societies that needs to be rooted out by education, re-education, and legislation. The rampant insanity emanating from Brussels grows more unrestrained with each new terrorist plot or attack, resulting in calls for more understanding of the “underlying causes” of terrorism (racism, Iraq, poverty, “fear,” discrimination, etc, etc etc.) and the insistence on greater inclusiveness and more stringent anti-Islamophobic legislation.
An ideological commitment to neoliberal globalization has turned multiculturalism and effectively open-ended Third World (overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration into two inviolable Euro-dogmas. The result is the inherent inability of Brussels and its post-national subsidiaries to defend Europe from the threat of Jihad. 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.
“Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue” indicates that their job is far from done, which is excellent news. They preach death, and it is up to the millions of normal people in the Western world to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the monistic Utopia spearheaded by the Jihadist fifth column. That crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the Old Republic overthrew their colonial rulers for offenses far lighter than those of which the Jihad-enabling traitor class is guilty.
62 Responses »
Trackbacks
- A Glimmer of Hope for Europe : Novakeo.com
- Romanian National Vanguard News Agency » Blog Archive » Eurabia: A Glimmer of Hope for Europe
Entries(RSS)
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Jason Whitmen
I would suggest two things, not so much in rebuttal to Dr. Trifkovic's arguments as in addition to them.
First, based on my experience with people and my knowledge of different religions including Islam, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "a religion of peace." Christianity and Judaism come close, but for every Mother Teresa and St. Francis, there are bloody-minded Christians and Jews who find support for their aggressive impulses in their interpretations of Holy Scripture. The same applies to Islam.
I once knew a fellow on Capitol Hill who wrote for a certain newspaper that I won't name. Although he was nominally a conservative, he was a nasty, hateful person. Then he became a born-again Christian, and he was a nasty, hateful born-again Christian. The only difference was that after his conversion, he hated people in the name of Jesus. I don't think that Jesus would have approved, but that's a different issue.
Second, massive immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to Western societies *whether or not* Islam is a religion of peace. A society, contra the libertarians, is not a grab-bag of disconnected individuals slash consumers. It is a group of people with a shared culture, history, and identity. Western societies are based on the Christian and Jewish religious traditions, as well as on Western European history and political traditions. Islam and Islamic societies, whether peaceful or not, are incompatible with those fundamental roots of Western societies. Bring in enough incompatible immigrants for long enough, and you cripple or destroy the host society: in fact, I have long suspected that it's part of the *reason* our political elites are so keen on mass immigration.
A disjointed rabble from 15 different cultures, speaking 25 different languages and holding a hundred different conceptions of government and political rights, cannot unite or offer any effective resistance to the decisions of the permanent ruling establishment.
It appears the Vatican also wants to ensure that it does not upset Islamic sensibilities. It recently chose to host the head of an illegal, breakaway European province in a private audience with the Pope.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11676
Just to be clear:
“As for any possible declaration of independence by Kosovo, the Holy See will follow developments on the ground with particular attention and, in her appraisal thereof, will bear in mind the position of the international community,” it continued.
I suppose that "developments on the ground" to date, such as the destruction of over 130 churches and monasteries, have offered inadequate guidance as to what position the Holy See should develop. Perhaps the "international community" will indeed help sort it out for the Bishop of Rome. One hopes the Vatican will consult the chief spokespersons of the "community", such as the marxist Javier Solana or the atheist "Christopher" Hitchens.
Our species is a predatory species, tribe oriented, territorial and hierarchal.
There are many things that bring out our predatory nature, one is religious diversity.
Even mono-racial societies will divide sharply with different religions present.
You also have the problem of bringing Muslims into the West whose countries have experienced long term hostility with Europeans: colonial, crusades, slave trades, etc.
Bringing together groups that have been historical enemies brings out our predatory instinct.
People tend to not forget historical grievances.
And since the Muslims coming to the West belong to races with average IQs under 90, they will decrease the wealth of the West over time, and poverty dramatically increases our predatory nature.
All the factors that bring out the predatory nature of our species would be present with Muslim immigration into Europe.
With the Muslim invasion, Europe will become increasingly Balkanized, poorer, filled with tension, alienation and instability.
Isn't that the opposite goal that people in the muli-cult promised?
Mr. Palmer,
Your first point's logic does not hold. It is the actual religion that is in question, and not the interpretation of that religion by individuals. Your finding a hateful, self-described Christian does not refute the peaceful foundations of Christianity as explained by Scripture and as articulated by the Church Fathers through Tradition. Nor does the fact that there can and do exist perfectly nice, self-described Muslims refute the violent foundations of that faith as explained by the Koran and the historical record of its prophets.
Your second point has some validity, but recognize that the issue at hand is the most dangerous immigration, not immigration per se. In assessing what is most pressing to address, perhaps we should ask ourselves: Have we heard of any major violence as a result of a major influx of Christian Poles into the UK? How about the influx of Muslims into the UK? I think the point is clear.
I assume that it is the re-election of Boris Tadic that is the cause of this hysterical rant! And I chuckled to note that Dr Trifkovic does not realise that the "Parliamentary Assembly" is an organ of the Council of Europe, of which Serbia is a member (as is Russia!). He has even referred to it elsewhere as the "E.U. Parliamentary Assembly"! The EU organ is, of course the "European Parliament".
On a more serious note, Europeans don't like foreigners, regardless of their religion or origins. Indeed anti-Semitism originates precisely in the European perception of the Jews as foreigners who don't want to "fit in with us", as David davies so aptly put it. The survey dealt only with immigrants from Muslim countries, but similar surveys dealing with Africans, Latin Americans, Chinese, Hindus would produce much the same result. Indeed, surveys of our attitudes to the US also produce much the same results! And it doesn't matter a damn who they are or where they come from. If they don't "fit in with us", we don't want them here!
Also, the survey does not deal with ethnic European Muslims, such as those from Bosnia or Kosovo, for example. Their fellow Europeans have a totally different attitude to them, precisely they don't look or sound "foreign" to us. In Germany, for example, the hostility towards Turks does not carry over to Muslims from Bosnia and Kosovo, because they are perceived as Yugoslavs, and therefore fall into the same category as Italians, or Greeks. Foreigners, yes, but not in the same way as the Turks!
Finally, what is really worrying Europeans is not so much Muslims as the Roma. Almost every country in Europe has a "Roma problem", but it is hardly reported at all in the press. I suspect that if the Roma were Muslims we would have Roma stories on the front pages every day! So the next time you are in the Paris Metro, gentle readers, don't worry about the fellow in the little white hat mopping the floor, but keep an eye on those Roma kids, because they've got their eye on your wallet!
The Left "is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:" the millions of Muslims they are bringing in are the most fanatical Left-hating antisemites the world has ever seen. I guess the Left's new rôle-model must be Samson.
It was the Jewish political body, media and writers who promote mass immigration and a multicultural society whilst supporting Isrials Jewish only immagration and jewish segragated housing and racial laws like the marriage of Cohen Jews to other Jews.
As kevin MacDonald and some real , original conservatives have quoted some promonent Jewish political figures in the US is that Jews tend to prosper in divide, multicultural societies.
@2Scott Palmer
I would say that generaly Christianity is a religion of peace that unlike Judism or Islam that has a culural history in sex slavery or usery (loan sharking).
Mr. Kenny
what is the point that you are trying to make? Yes, it is true that in most European societies Roma, that are not a threat to Europe and not perceived as such by Europeans, are disliked and discriminated. It is problem that needs to be solved and both sides, also Roma, need to make some efforts. Besides, there are lot of examples of well integrated Roma, lot of them could be found in Serbia. This country, for instance, has chosen to be represented at Eurovision last year by a proud Roma girl, Maria Serifovic (she won). She and her family always proudly acknowledged their Roma ethnic background and are true Serbian patriots (Maria endorsed the Radical party candidate, Tomislav Nikolic ).
Muslims are indeed a threat to Europe, unlike Roma, and we Europeans know to differentiate between the two very well Mr. Kenny. Also Germans who you are obviously perceive as some sort of morons.
Opposite to what you write, Mr. Kenny, also Germans have learned very well to differentiate between Moslems and non Moslem foreigners. Also those who you call ethnic European Muslims, from Bosnia and Albania, are by no means perceived in Germany any more the way you say they are (they might have been, 15 years ago, but things are rapidly changing).
I live in Germany and can assure you that an average German, despite of tones of brainwashing by the media, has noticed the above the average disposition towards violence of all Moslems, including ethnic Albanians and Muslims from Bosnia.
The historical resentments of Germans towards Serbs that have facilitated their support for "Bosnians" and "Kosovars" give way more and more to sobering question whether they, too, like Serbs, might become a minority in their own country, due to import of agressive Muslims, and despite, giving them rights similar to those that Muslims in Yugoslavia enjoyed. Less and less Germans believe that wars in Yugoslavia were consequence of Serbian opression of Muslims, because they simply see with their own eyes that compromises with Muslims are a matter of impossibility. Go to PI Blog or Acht der Schwerter or number of other blogs that are meanwhile visited by millions of Germans and you will see that it is not some irrational stupid hater towards "foreigners" but well founded, rational observation, that there is a problem with Islam, that Muslims are non-assimilable, also those "European" ones (I would like to draw your attention to recent "honor killings" by ethnic Albanians in Stuttgart, that did not go unnoticed by Germans).
Of course, I am not speaking of German nomenklatura, or media, that still prefers to live disconnected from reality (like "Pravda" in the Communist times).
The problem we Europeans have is that we have to fight on two fronts. Slowly but for sure average European, also German, understands that it is the EU nomenclatura that opened the gates to the invading Moslems. I believe and hope that 10 years from now even in Germany, that always was staunchly pro-EU, there will be a critical mass of anti EU sentiment.
Than we will have a chance to save at least some parts of Europe.
Regards,
Since the discussion has turned to the apparent Jewish influence responsible for both multiculturalism and globalization, perhaps someone out there can help me understand a confusing fact. I know that throughout almost all of western history, the Jews were discriminated against. Most countries in the medieval age for instance had various laws which greatly worked to suppress the Jewish people. There was a felt need to hold the Jewish power in check. Since Christianity was a much stronger force than today, these laws testify to the fact that there was no real love between the two faiths. In fact, it would seem that such laws were enacted out of fear. And this remained pretty much the situation till our own time. But now my mother and my aunt tell me that the Jewish state must be protected at all costs, since they are God’s chosen people. When the Jewish state falls, they tell me, it will usher in the apocalypse. They fervently believe this as a part of their Christian faith. However, this contradicts Christian history before our own time. How did this obvious contradiction occur?
"Jewish political body" that "James" is refering to includes people who do not act along with traditional Jewish ethics, but contrary to it. Those people might be Jewish by name, but they do not care a bit about Judaism. And not seldom they join the choir of voices that are critical of Israel.
Those Jewish supporters of mass immigration and multiculturalism are as much "Jews" as those who support Cedomir Jovanovic and LPD in Serbia are "Serbs". They are mostly full of contempt for their Jewish background and for the traditonal Judaism of which they have no idea.
They act as Kapos. This is the attitude created by hunderds of years of dhimmitude. Some of the worst antisemmitic books have been written by such Jews.
Last but not least, I would like to have one example of one and the same Jewish person supporting mass immigration for Europe and ratial laws for Israel at the same time - I don´t think they could be found. "James" comment is a simple slander of Jews.
In addition to the above post: Henryk Broder, to mention just one example, a prominent Jewish columnist in Germany, is one of the few intellectuals in this country who is writing against the Moslem immigration and is acknowledging that multiculturalism is a blind alley. Acknowledging that "Eurabia" is not a mythos, but reality.
Another one is Ralph Giordano, a Holocoust survivor. He raised his voice against the constructions of mosques.
They both clearly speak against multiculturalism. If they were not Jewish, the nomenclatura would immediately accuse them of being "Nazi".
Pls do not forget Bat Ye'or (ample info available to the curious) and my good friend, the late Sir Alfred Sherman:
http://www.trifkovic.mysite.com/article_5.html
who issued the following prescient warning 11 years ago:
“At the time of writing, the USA is uniquely powerful. It will not always be so. In the course of time, Russia may gain its potential strength, and there is very little the USA can do about Chinese development… A law of history is that power tends to generate countervailing power. It is not for me to trace how this will come about. We can do little more than guard against arrogance and over-extension and minimize the pointless sacrifices they usually entail. I am proud to have taken part in this struggle, the struggle to bring the powerful to their senses before they plunge into reckless, ruthless folly. This struggle carries no guarantee of success, for it is the quest for sanity that epitomizes the struggle of suffering humanity throughout the ages.”
Sherman was both Jewish and Western. His abiding conviction that Western intervention in Yugoslavia has come as a result of the crisis of post-Christian moral decrepitude stemmed directly from his key insight that Washington’s hegemonism was based on a new cultural paradigm, materialistic, anti-traditional. This megalomania is a form of madness, he said, and nothing new; but – as he wrote for Chronicles Online in May 2000,
“The power and prestige of America is in the hands of people who will not resist the temptation to invent new missions, lay down new embargoes, throw new bombs, and fabricate new courts. For the time being, they control the United Nations, the World Bank, most of the world's high-tech weapons, and the vast majority of the satellites that watch us from every quadrant of the skies. This is the opportunity they sense, and we must ask what ambitions they will declare next… Instead of rediscovering the virtues of traditionally defined, enlightened self-interest in the aftermath of its hands down cold war victory, America's foreign policy elites are more intoxicated than ever by their own concoction of benevolent global hegemony and indispensable power.”
How more Paleo can you get?
The project is coming to grief, as Sherman knew it would, but since his advice often took the form of a recommendation to prefer pain today to disaster tomorrow, he had found few patrons or disciples.
That glimmer of hope (in the severe deficit of trust found between Western and Muslim communities) unfortunately flickers among the powerless multitude. If this deficit of trust ever infiltrates the mindset of the ruling élites and brings them to their senses, there might yet be a future for Christian societies in Europe.
Indeed, but please remember: demography IS destiny!
Coming to one's senses must be reflected in fertility rates, or else it is either false or irrelevant.
@11R. V. M.
The Talmud is extremly anti christain and is the basis of the Jewish religion. Historical records show that Jews as a group body have been hostile to christian nations where they dwell usually expelled from nation states due to excessive rate of interest on loans (usuary) or helping invading enemies of nations where they settled like the morish invasion of Spain or the fall of Constantenople to Ottoman Turks and most recently War against Serbia with accompanied use of Holocaust iconography in the western press..
This is a great article. Well done, Mr. Trifkovic.
I want to ask you, and readers of Chronicles, do you think civil war is coming to Europe? I don't mean to sound paranoid or extremist, but with the way things are going I can't imagine any other scenario. I don't think the possibility of civil war is as far-fetched as it might appear, given the long history of warfare on the Continent.
In any event, I sense that something is about to happen, and it is not good. My contacts amongst nationalist organisations in Britain and Europe are telling me that semi-clandestine 'self-defense militias' are being formed. If this is true (and I'm not sure I believe them) and you believe war is inevitable, would it not make sense to make preparations?
Dr. I suggest you ask them (meaning the Muslims and nihilist libs) the questions that the pet media refuse to ask. We have read accounts like this for decades which is mostly a continuation of "shriek and retreat" conservatism. I'll help you, first question, "What do you think of the West and its peoples?"
Well, since you ask, here it comes:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/TrifkovicMartyr.php
The present technological, military, and financial might of the Western world is a mere façade that conceals an underlying moral and spiritual weakness that may yet undermine the entire edifice. The symptoms of that malaise start with the loss of faith, manifest in the fact that, in today's Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany, more people pray in mosques on Fridays than in churches on Sundays.... [I]n this, 21st century, it will be the turn of Western Christians to experience martyrdom.
n Western Europe they will be persecuted by the unholy alliance between the postmodern, Christophobic velvet totalitarianism of the therapeutic hyper-state, and a resurgent Islam which already accounts for a quarter of all newborns in France.
In the United States they will be persecuted for refusing to accept the destruction of the moral foundation of the society, currently epitomized by abortion, by "gay marriage," and by the ever-expanding speech and thought codes.
Instead of being thrown to the lions or sent to Siberia, the resisters will be subjected--by some monstrous mechanism devised by an ever more activist judiciary--to the mandatory "sexual diversity orientation sessions," or feminist-led pro-abortionist "right-to-choose education workshops," or "immigrant rights sensitivity training," after which the continuing refusal to recant will lead to compulsory "therapy" and forced medication. This scenario is not farfetched on either side of the Atlantic. Western Christians should be prepared for martyrdom.
The witness of the New Martyrs makes it necessary to define what is permissible and what is impermissible in the relationship between the Church and state, especially a state that is pursuing policies that are evil. For starters, it is necessary to reject any absolutization of government authority. Earthly and temporal powers of the state should be recognized as imperative only to the degree that they are used to support good and limit evil.
This problem was recognized over 70 years ago by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in the "Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops Abroad" of 1933:
"The attempt to delineate spheres of influence between the Church and the State--the soul of man belongs to the former, his body to the latter--will in principle never achieve its objective, because it is only possible to divide man into two separate parts in an abstract sense; in reality, they comprise a single, indivisible whole, and only death dissolves the tie that binds them together." A Christian is obliged to obey the law, regardless of how far it is imperfect and unfortunate -- but when compliance with legal requirements threatens his eternal salvation and involves an apostasy or commitment of another doubtless sin before God and his neighbor, the Christian is called to perform the feat of confession for the sake of God's truth and the salvation of his soul for eternal life. He must speak out lawfully against an indisputable violation committed by society or state against the statutes and commandments of God. If this lawful action is impossible or ineffective, he must take up the position of civil disobedience.
This model should be broad enough to provide the consensual platform for different Christian traditions. To regain the war-ravaged remnants of "Christendom," its embattled majority of manipulated citizens needs help to become conscious of the power that it still possesses, but to that end it should be admitted by every Christian that others--people outside his particular tradition--may share Christian virtues and lead good lives. They need to hang together, in these trying times, or else they will most assuredly hang separately. At all times they need to be prepared to bear witness to the Truth of Christ to the death, as Christ Himself, the "Faithful Witness" (Rev., I, 5), "to this end was born, and for this cause came into the world, to bear witness unto the truth" (John XVIII, 37), and to give up His life through suffering on the Cross for the redemption of many. To bear Christian witness is to give glory to God in living and in dying, just as Metropolitan Benjamin of St Petersburg and millions of other New Martyrs have done: "If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord" (Romans XIV, 8).
In the scenario being discussed here, consciousness raising among the ignorant and manipulated masses sunk in a decaying culture could be a task for an order of militant clergy - acting on something like the now virtually defunct Jesuit mandate.
But, in my view, the behaviour of the higher clergy (at least in the Catholic church) is part of the moral problem rather than a potent factor in its solution.
Martyrdom is hardly the best solution to combat the hyper-state and Islam. What about those of us who are not Christian, or are ex-Christian, and yet sympathise with Christianity. Should we accept martyrdom too? Or should we devise ways of thinking, methods, and techniques to undermine and bring down the present order? Perhaps we need to expand the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable action.
Whatever maybe the incompetence of NuLabour, and it is huge by any standard - the destruction of the best education system in the world, which will take at least 50 years to repair, the dilapidated state of the infrastructure, the NHS etc., all this can be repaired in time.
What cannot be forgiven is the existential crisis that NuLabour has bequeathed future generations, caused by allowing the unrestricted immigration of inassimilable immigrants. Many of these, as a group, harbour an active desire to replace democracy in the UK with shari'a.
Given the prodiguous birth rate of Muslims, this act of NuLabour has sown the seeds of the destruction of Britain, leading to partition, as in the Balkans, or worse.
@6: Mr Kenny, judging by his name, presumably hails from Ireland or possibly Britain. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; some people assume that I am of Jewish heritage, though my name is of Welsh origin). These two countries have experienced sectarian violence and terrorism that had nothing to do with Islam--although, even granting that the conflict has its roots in confessional alignment, the struggle has been much less a religious conflict than North American Catholics would like to believe or than the presence of Ian Paisley would suggest. Ireland, for its part, tends to be geopolitically neutral on such matters as the American-led "War on Terror" and what is more, has not yet been quite as innundated with Islamic or other third-world immigration as many other countries in Western Europe.
Given all this, perhaps it is easy to understand why Mr Kenny might see the Roma as a greater threat than Islam. R.V.M. has aptly pre-empted me, but I'd be remiss if I did not point out that at any rate, in France, where I live, that is not the case at all. Vagrants and pocket-pickers of all ethnicities are considered a nuissance (not the least because they are damaging to tourism) but scarcely the subject of news or fear.
Now, it is certainly true that there are other threats to traditional European ways of life. The U.S. is a threat even to its own traditions (long since dead, actually), and yes, American tourists are obnoxious, but Ireland is not helping its problem by following 1950's and 1960's models of American suburban sprawl and expansion, which are as much a threat to its culture as Hollywood and Madison Avenue.
It is not the first time the Irish have collectively taken a very real and serious grievance and made it worse for themselves, but they have no monopoly on this fault. Ultimately Europe and the U.S. are responsible for unleashing the voices that unleashed this flood upon us. Shouting our opposition to Americanisation, Islamisation, etc. ad infinitum is all well and good, but when will we finally take responsibility and do something proactive to stop it? Shall we vote straight-ticket Republican/UMP/Tory/Fianna Fail/CDU? Gimme a break.
@R.V.P., James: the relationship between Jews and Christians/Occidentals is more complex than either of you suggest. One encounters the whole spectrum of religious and nonreligious Jews, Orthodox and Reform, conservative and leftist, pro-Israel and Israel-skeptic (the latter being admittedly a tiny minority), pro-Christian and anti-Christian...
..and the interesting thing is, none of these categories is necessarily, if even at all, correlated with another. Two of my closest friends are atheist, nominally pro-Israel Jews who are only slightly anti-religious and decidedly pro-Occidental. On the other hand I have known others who are staunchly Orthodox and pro-Israel, yes, even to the point of advocating ethnic cleansing or at least disenfranchisement in the Levant, and somewhat anti-Christian but a self-avowed Occidental Monarchist. (He's not a very learned fellow and may be surprised to discover the intertwining of Church and State that created the Christian monarchical tradition.)
The Catholic Church is clearer on the subject: we are to reject false religions, but infliction of unprovoked, nondefensive physical harm and disenfranchisement upon anyone is a serious sin. We can and should create friendships with infidels, friendship properly understood.
Personally, I have no problem welcoming into my home all those who admire my civilization and will fight to defend its true and traditional form (as opposed to equating "pro-Western" with "pro-democracy" and "human rights")--whatever they may be doing at home.
@19: The lines were almost clearer for the martyrs at the hands of the Pagans and Communists: they faced the choice between standing for what they believed in and dying. Perhaps the mocking, seductive tone of Progressive thought is what has made it so successful at rotting away Christianity where the other two have failed: it's easy to be lured into selling one's soul to save one's reputation under the mistaken impression that one is living to "fight another day." Now that I am out of university and stuck in the real world, God only knows when I'll have to make that choice. I've a feeling I've failed time and again already...
One more thing: the case of Ireland, with its dearth of any encounters (positive or negative) with Islam and the support shown by the I.R.A. for their cause in the Middle East--one finds explicitly pro-Palestinian and anti-American murals all along Falls Road--will make it an interesting test for Islamic militancy as a "threat" to Europe as immigration onto that island continues to climb. Will the Muslims be welcomed and integrate themselves "peacefully"? Will they join forces with their nominally Catholic supporters up north against imperialist Britain (for whom it were not Israel would certainly not exist)? Or will they lapse into what Dr. Trifkovic labelled SJS: Sudden Jihad Syndrome?
Will they or will they not? A vexing question with an altogether uncertain answer...
The common man in Europe believes that immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life? So what? The EU power brokers don't care one iota what the people think. The Euro Arab Dialog and multiculturalism rule the roost.
The emergence of a German controlled EU super state will continue unabated. America, by its Balkan policy, has cleared the way for the reemergence of Germany as a world power; its rearmament is underway. America, by its Middle East policy, has cleared that region of Iran's enemies. It is not much off the mark to describe America's foreign policy from Carter until today as anti-American and anti-Western.
"Arius" is either a regular "Chronicles" reader (and yes, I mean the print issue), or else a sound chap in need of education.
@Arius: Indeed, it is realistic to suppose that America is as much of a threat to the West as Islam. Imagine a nation whose very existence as an independent entity is predicated upon a simplistic, Christophobic creed invading, torturing and killing anyone who stands in the way of its hallowed mission.
Are you imagining the great Arab Caliphate, based upon the Islamic faith with a sacred mission to annihilate all other religions?
Or are you imagining the U.S.A., deeply entrenched in the Enlightenment and carrying a manifest destiny to evangelize the world to the worship of constitutional democratic capitalism?
Hard to tell, I know.
James(8) - "Jews tend to prosper in divide, multicultural societies."?
Pardon me! Do you mean Jews prosper by 'dividing' societies? OR Jews ... prosper in multicultural societies?
Whichever, you are clearly disseminating propaganda; your statement cannot be proved by any statistic, academic enquiry, historical fact or demographic.
At this point in time, there are approximately 6 million Jews in Israel. That is half the total number of Jews in the world. Please take a little time to compare and contrast these numbers with the overwhelming billions of Muslims and their medieval breeding habits.
The history of Jews in Europe and America is one of peaceful integration and a massive contribution to western society in terms of science, medicine, philosophy and the arts.
It is extraordinary how the uninformed insist on perpetrating the oldest hatred whilst civilization as we understand it in the west is under the most severe threat it has experienced since the Nazis.
Jews have not colonized vast tracts of our cities, they have not demanded special privileges and laws. Islam seeks to conquer by fair means i.e. using the dhimmis of Europe and frightened national governments to impose Sharia law, parallel societies,
barbaric alien cultures and punishments; OR by foul - bombs, racial/religious attacks, no-go areas and ultimately the ghastly breeding imposed on their subservient wives.
@ MAP: In answer to your question. The hatred of Jews was fostered by the Christian religion in the teaching that Jews murdered Christ. This is, of course, historically inaccurate - the Romans crucified Christ. The 'myth' continued unabated - particularly in the Roman Catholic Church - and explains (to some extent) the co-operation by the uneducated masses in Europe with the extermination of the Jews 1939-45.
That said, Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and an ex-priest carried the myth into Protestantism. As an Anglican, I have always found this inexplicable. I was taught that Jesus was a Jew! AND that Jews are the Chosen People of God.
I suspect your wife and mother - of whatever Protestant domination - believe (Revelations) that Christ (the Messiah) will only come when the Jews are returned to their Promised land.
Re. Ireland and Muslims. They are already here. The numbers are quite small. However, there are already 'rumblings' - schools, invitations to extreme clerics and, of course, the dreaded head coverings and the failure to integrate. Time will tell. Perhaps the Irish who have struggled so long for a sovereign state will be less apathetic than the English to the colonisation of their country.
It is possible that the present decline in the health of the Celtic Tiger may well focus minds on the question of immigrants.
@ DrTrifkovic - a wonderfully thought-provoking essay. I was directed here from Cranmer's blog. Many thanks.
To cut the long story short: whenever I encounter anti-Jew speak in response to Jihad, I know that it's an ally of Jihad I am dealing with. It's just like writing a scholarly article on leaukaemia and being told that it cannot be resolved unless and until the cure for melanoma is found. Monistic obsesiveness is our enemy's ally.
@29KS They dwell in divide multicultural societies. If you want proof then look at the historical record of Jewish organisations in sponsering bills in the US senate for massive immigration into the US and who were the actually organisational leaders of civil rights groups during the sixties( like the NAACP) and the predominant role Jews have in media, academia and government in the US.
KS,
Regarding the Irish, I'm concerned their Catholicism will hinder their good sense to reject the Muslims. I guess it's common for Protestants to be suspicious of Vatican influence, but I am nevertheless.
And too when I ask Irish why they fight with the Irish in Ulster, they point solely to religion, not ethnicity. Do Protestants and Catholics really have anything to fight over, and doesn't ethnicity matter to modern day Christians in the least?
What we need is the expulsion of the alien elements. This acceptance of "once in, in for life" is absurd and would seem to fit in with perpetual revolution, as is proposition nationalism. There is no Muslim problem if they're deported back to the Middle East, or somewhere else if their homelands reject them. Liberalism is national suicide.
I don't want anyone to reply in agreement lest they be associated with such stances, but this is the reality, unless folks wish to cede ground and take refuge in enclaves of their rightful lands.
Margaret Thatcher once quipped that the Left has to keep its agenda a secret in order to succeed. Why anyone on the Right with any integrity goes along with this I cannot understand. The neocons I can understand, they are Joseph,our state is the Pharoah and we are the former freemen now reduced to submissiveness. Fear of the mob and their holy taboos, and its safer to finish the sentences of the Left and take the crumbs I guess. Too afraid to ask the mandarins if their genocide of the peoples of the West should be thought of as Treason.
Archbishop of Canterbury says UK adoption of some aspect of Sharia Law inevitable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
====
A very dim glimmer it would seem.
#32, "james",
As others have tried to tell you, your _English_ is deficient: one can say "They dwell in divisive multicultural societies", or "They dwell in divided multicultural societies", but certainly not "... They dwell in divide multicultural societies ..." which is meaningless.
Mr. Moses says that he has no problem with inviting anyone into his home that admires his civilization and would fight to maintain it's traditional form. Does he consider that his home is also the home of his racial kinsmen? How does this help them to avoid being genocided ? What happens to the words he adheres to when the white race is genocided? Would Dr. Trifkovics, Serbian ancesters have been so valient against the Muslims if they believed they were fighting for the correct words more than their own flesh and blood? "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asian, white countries for everybody" if they admire us and would fight for traditional forms.
James,
MacDonald is a great thinker who has studied and written upon an extremely important topic, but as Dr. Trifkovic said:
In other words, oversimplification is folly. The Jews cannot be blamed for everything, and I'm sure MacDonald would agree.
@37M Ment to say "They dwell in divided multicultural societies" didn't notice the spelling error until I posted my comment.
@39Frank I didn't say Jews are to blame for everything but they do dominate the media and are the majority of financial contributers to both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US as well as the holding high level positions in influential think tanks and NGO's like AEI and NED. On immigration no other group has more power and influence than shaping immigration policy than Jews and with there ownership of the major media networks in the US shape the debate on immigration.
So much for your "glimmer of hope"...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unavoidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do
The main problem with Islam and muslims is that it percieves itself as a race and a persecuted one at that. It is also western governments who during the 90's let radical imans freely recruit muslims to go and fight in the former Yugoslavia while the western press was denouncing Milosevic as the new Hitler.
Evan fairly recently Baber Ahmed who ran Azzam publications and websites was trying to run for British MP and even has a muslim MP who is a friend of his.
James,
they do tend to favor open borders and do hold immense power of the US media and political parties, but they are also prone to reject antisemitic immigrants, and make no mistake most immigrants are antisemitic. In Britain some have allied with the BNP, though I don't know how that will turn out.
Not to say I know what all ought to be done regarding Jews and such... I'm hardly a political analyst.
@38: You clearly do not know me.
As for Jews, Irish, and Catholics:
1. Frank has echoed my sentiments that the relationship between Jews and Gentiles cannot be reduced to buzzwords like "God's chosen" nor "subverters."
2. I realise there are Muslims in Ireland; when I was in Dublin last summer the Islamic Centre of Ireland was just up the road! However, they are not [yet] a ubiquitous feature of the country's life (as they are in many parts of France and the U.K.).
3. I will spare defense of my "Roman" Catholic Church for another day, but see point #1, and if you have yet to do so, read a little bit on the history of dispensationalist/covenant theology.
4. There is no non-fundamentalist Protestant church whose clergy is not obsessed with heartfelt "outreaching" to (i.e., accepting invasions from) the Third World, and the more non-Christians the better. If you're going to hold up fundamentalist churches against Catholicism, you have to compare them to the Tridentine/Lefebvrite wing of the Catholic Church.
@43Frank Immigrants in Europe perhaps but not in the US where most are catholic Mexicans, although they dont pose a strategic threat to the US, I dont subscribe to the idea that Mexican are trying so carve out a state in the US which they claim was stolen from them centuries ago.
Jews also have major influence in British press like the head of ITN and the pro Jewish Rupert Murdoch who characterise nationalist groups like the BNP as essentually Nazi facists.
PS I noticed a made spelling errors in my previous comments which I tend to make when typing fast.
James,
It doesn't require for most of them to wish for secession, only an active minority of them and there is such a minority. The rest are more passive supporters and potentially inclined to side with their own and to distrust the other.
I... actually reject them more strongly because they're not congruent with the American natives rather than that they're not Christian. Religion is important, but blood seems more so to a nation, though not in the least meant to downplay the vital importance of religion to a nation.
Americans, even those who aren't globalists, don't seem to have any sense of nationhood though, so I'm increasingly convinced there is about... zero hope of much being saved here. Nor will anyone much care it seems. Founding fathers, Civil War, wha? Those were those white slave owning racists, yea?
I tend to think Christians are making a huge mistake with embracing a large part of globalism in their futile attempt at remaining mainstream. It's ancestral traditions that matter, and an unrooted, transient society won't retain the religion they claim to hold so dear, though many Protestants already seem to be universalists more than Christians so maybe they will have what they want after all.
I'll close with just saying that America is no longer a Christian, nor an Anglo-white nation. If such exists, it's one of many within.
Europe, and especially UK, does not stand a chance against the penetration of Islamic religion and culture as long as you have people like the Archbishop of Canterbury claiming that the Sharia Law will eventually be established in UK. The British have been emasculated by their homosexual and perverted elites and intimidated into sheep-like behavior by omnipresent surveillance cameras. They cannot even vote like free people whether to join the new European Union gulag.
I think Srdja Trifkovic, Pat Buchannan and other traditional conservatives should create a political and have branches abroad in Europe like the Republican party. The ideas discussed in publications like Chronicles and Buchannans American Conservative magazine are unheard of in the UK all we have is the two identical main parties and a bunch of far left third parties. I think they would make good strides in Serbia and Russia and would show a better side of US political body than Tom Lantos or John McCain. The only problem would be finding a good name for the party.
@48 ("budimir"): You beat me to it!
I'm afraid, good sir, that you have missed the point. Rowan Williams is a vile man, but he is not wrong in principle. In better times, when Britain and France had global empires, they allowed the Muslims under their rule to redress their internal grievances in Sharia courts--to, of course, a reasonable extent. All rulers, even of Christian states, must make provisions for the minorities he rules.
It is true that Britain and France had to take these people as they found them, and that the Muslims are now the ones wanting to move to a Christian society. But as long as the British are determined NOT to keep them out, why not give up on this futile and fruitless effort to produce the illusion--and it IS an illusion--of integration?
The policy of the French empire was originally that Algerians could not become citizens unless they converted to Christianity, and later changed so that any Muslim who renounced his right to Sharia court could become a French citizen. Very few of them took up this offer, because it was tantamount to renouncing their religion.
Why can Britain not do something similar? It would certainly open the eyes of the British people to a very stark reality.
Some days I listen to the materialistic rantings and P.C. ninnyism of my generation and I think it is hopeless. But other days, I wonder if perhaps our prospects have never looked so good. All it takes is a few well-placed, exceptionally stupid fellows with large gobs to sound the alarm.
James,
what's wrong with the BNP? It shouldn't matter that the media or left wing nuts dislike it; the BNP is a fine party.