There are three movements pressing to control our lives, all fast becoming irresistible as they drive towards their ultimate objective: totalitarian world government.
First there is a concord of elites. These ardent globalists are the leaders of the EU, certain billionaires, and the chiefs of financial institutions and international corporations who want the entire world to be their shop.
Second there is the International Left, which to achieve its aim of world socialism, cites “man-made global warming” as a compelling danger which they insist only world government can control.
Third, there is Islam, on its centuries-old mission of world conquest, to force the entire human race to submit to the god and laws proclaimed by Muhammad.
At present the three are in tacit alliance.
In America now, in 2016, all three desire the election of Hillary Clinton to the US presidency.
The elites know they can pay her to do their will. Her passion for power and money makes her an easy tool in their hands.
The International Left remembers that early in her life she embraced communism. Though she no longer speaks of her discipleship of the American communist Saul Alinsky, her predilection for communitarianism and dominating government, remains manifestly unshaken.
Islam, through her, has acquired unprecedented influence on the conduct of US foreign affairs. Her closest aide when she was secretary of state – and at present – is a child of the Muslim Brotherhood. Numerous rulers of Islamic states have bought her favors. She has announced that she would import tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants into America.
But the interests of the three movements are different, and the nearer they get to their goal, the more rivalry and conflict will arise between them.
The power and wealth elites, the tycoons, the plutocrats, are “crony capitalists”. They favor a world without national borders because they want no impediments to their pursuit of wealth and the power that wealth brings. Socialist government on a world scale would be an impediment both to their commerce and their power.
To the socialists, the capitalists are justly doomed. They can be made use of, however, as a source of funding for revolutionary change until History – aka world socialist government – “inevitably” destroys them.
Though neither hedonist tycoons nor dictatorial socialists – or the feminists among them both – fear Islam now, a world ruled by sharia law would not be a world they’d enjoy living in.
(Would anyone enjoy living in it? Devout Muslims themselves want nothing more than to escape it and get to paradise.)
But now they are all working towards the same end, and the only chance we have of saving ourselves from globalization is with the coming election. The only person who can save us from it is Donald Trump, who must become president and keep Hillary Clinton out of power. He wants above all, he says, to protect, preserve, strengthen and enrich the nation-state of the USA, where people of all derivations can live together in freedom under the Constitution. But those enormously powerful and ruthless forces, helped by the predominantly left-leaning media and the academies, are against him. Have they already become too strong to be stopped?
Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party who played a major role in bringing Britain out of the corrupt bureaucratic EU, speaks at a recent Trump rally in Jackson, MS, against those who work and scheme for corporate globalization.
In the year 1857, at the summer assizes of the county of Cornwall, an unfortunate man, said to be of unexceptionable conduct in all relations of life, was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment, for uttering, and writing on a gate, some offensive words concerning Christianity.
Today offensive words against Islam is a crime in Britain and most of the countries of the European Union.
Within a month of the same time, at the Old Bailey, two persons, on two separate occasions, were rejected as jurymen, and one of them grossly insulted by the judge and by one of the counsel, because they honestly declared that they had no theological belief; and a third, a foreigner, for the same reason, was denied justice against a thief.
This refusal of redress took place in virtue of the legal doctrine, that no person can be allowed to give evidence in a court of justice, who does not profess belief in a God (any god is sufficient) and in a future state ,,,
Meaning an afterlife in a Christian heaven or hell …
… which is equivalent to declaring such persons to be outlaws, excluded from the protection of the tribunals; who may not only be robbed or assaulted with impunity, if no one but themselves, or persons of similar opinions, be present, but any one else may be robbed or assaulted with impunity, if the proof of the fact depends on their evidence.
The assumption on which this is grounded, is that the oath is worthless, of a person who does not believe in a future state; a proposition which betokens much ignorance of history in those who assent to it (since it is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honor); and would be maintained by no one who had the smallest conception how many of the persons in greatest repute with the world, both for virtues and for attainments, are well known, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers.
The rule, besides, is suicidal, and cuts away its own foundation. Under pretense that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood.
A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity, that the qualification for undergoing it, is the being clearly proved not to deserve it. The rule, and the theory it implies, are hardly less insulting to believers than to infidels. For if he who does not believe in a future state, necessarily lies, it follows that they who do believe are only prevented from lying, if prevented they are, by the fear of hell.
The quotation comes from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, first published in 1869.
New curbs on free speech (see the post immediately below) are taking the people of the West in the 21st century back to the 19th century.
Will the unaccountable passion among Western rulers and legislators for protecting the appalling ideology of Islam from criticism, take us all the way back to the time of Calvin’s Geneva and the Catholic Inquisition?
The answer has to be “all too possibly”.
Two people, Miriam Shaded and Leszek Samborski, discuss what to do to save Poland – and Europe – from Islamization.
They both see the necessity of dealing vigorously with a great evil. The woman talks the better sense.
(Click on the cc for the English translation)
Right on the nail as always, Pat Condell blames Europe’s ruling politicians, and above all Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, for turning Europe into a battlefield of jihad. He sees all-out war coming. We do too. He reminds the indigenous peoples of the continent that they still have the power to save their countries by voting those politicians out. Just as the British people voted to take their country out of the corrupt tyranny called the European Union.
Americans also need to heed his message. In this context, Hillary Clinton is the potential Angela Merkel of the the United States. She has announced that she wants a 500 percent increase in the number of Muslim “refugees” coming into America from the Middle East. She must not be given the power to do to America what Merkel has done to Europe.
Political parties in the Western world are undergoing dramatic and permanent change.
In America, Donald Trump has changed the Republican Party. It will not go back to being what it was before he became its most popular candidate for the presidency.
The Democratic Party was always a racist cabal, and now it’s a criminal racket under the dictatorship of the Clintons. They have been “nudged” towards the wilder shores of Leftism by the surprising popularity of the “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, who stood against Hillary Clinton for the presidential candidacy – but was not allowed to win, of course.
The Libertarian Party’s support is growing. There is even talk of it replacing the Republican Party. In any case, the Libertarians want the two-party system to fade away and new parties – chiefly their own – to enter the competition for power with a fair chance of winning.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for the presidential elections, says: “I think 30 million people here are up for grabs that are probably Libertarian; it’s that they just don’t know it.”
In Europe, new parties are emerging and old ones re-emerging in new forms and with new policies, in response to the governing elites’ disastrous immigration policies, by which millions of Muslims have poured into the continent from the Third World, bringing their customs of violence and misogyny with them.
In Britain, the established political parties are showing signs of disintegration and possible re-alignment.
Our British contributing associate, Chauncey Tinker*, writes:
Jeremy Corbyn, the present unpopular leader of the Labour Party, will cling on to power until he feels a suitable loony leftie has appeared who can replace him. Corbyn is not having a great time being the leader but he cares about the loony left’s future in politics and he is not going to hand power back to the centrist Blairite arm of the party in a hurry. He repeatedly says he has the mandate of the “party membership”, and he actually really seems to feel duty bound not to disappoint them. I do think winning general elections is not the biggest priority in his mind, its much more about representing the real loony left.
The former leader, Ed Miliband, made a disastrous decision to open the membership to anyone with £3 to spare, so changing the party membership, allowing the proper lefties to take over (and there are suggestions that some mischievous Tories also pitched in) and I don’t think they can easily undo this, without splitting the party in two. They are still joining at an astonishing rate apparently, even though the membership fee has been increased to £25 to try and stop this. But it looks as if it will ensure a majority vote for Corbyn.
Could the party split in two? There has been quite a lot of speculation about it. The Blairite / loony left ideological split has been going on since Tony Blair arrived on the scene. However I can’t help feeling that the Blairites have just lost faith in their own cause. Corbyn’s chief rival for the leadership, Owen Smith, seems in many respects to be not really that far away from Corbyn; but – so far at least – without the tendency to seem like a supporter of Islam. And I have yet to hear him suggest that the government should print money and give wads of it to poor people. As such he maybe doesn’t deserve to be thought of as a loony leftie, just a normal leftie. There’s a short clip of him talking in the Telegraph (see here). He would certainly win the votes of the “always voted Labour, always will” types, and might even stand a chance in a general election – although apparently he has hinted in favour of a second referendum on Brexit, which might well be a vote loser considering at least 52% voted to leave the European Union.
If they did split Labour it would be a huge breath of fresh air for UK politics, and give the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) a chance to get a foot in the door with more MPs. I think UKIP’s chances right now would be good if it were not for the fact they are also in disarray. Nigel Farage has resigned the leadership, and I don’t find the frontrunner Steven Woolfe impressive. But maybe he will improve.
Overall its just deeply uninspiring on all fronts, and the new Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, looks almost unshakeable with this rabble of an opposition.
It seems possible that she could even reunite the Conservative Party after the deep divisions within it over Brexit. But for how long?
* Chauncey Tinker was a computer programmer for many years. He writes: “I had always had a keen interest in current affairs but around 2012 my interest turned to real alarm. I began to read about the Islamic religion and became increasingly troubled by what I learned, especially in view of the ever increasing presence of Islam in the West. By 2013 I was beginning to realize just how much the mainstream media is dominated by a certain warped and narrow way of thinking (far away from my own fairly libertarian views), how freedom of speech was being eroded and stifled by “political correctness”. More alarmingly still I also began to notice how governments were beginning to pass laws that could actually criminalize views that dissented from theirs. Determined to challenge this trend, I left my computing career and began to study current affairs full time. I began my blog late in 2015.”
What are European leaders thinking when they fanatically destroy European civilization by importing millions of devotees of that supremacist totalitarian ideology, Islam?
We are afforded a revelation of the thoughts of Federica Mogherini, a Red from her youth who bears the grandiose title of “High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”, in a speech she made at the “Call to Europe V: Islam in Europe” conference, June 24th, 2015.
The idea of a clash between Islam and “the West” – a word in which everything is put together and confused – has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.
Her vocabulary constantly reveals her Leftism. “Narrative” is one of the buzzwords of the Left. We’ll come upon more of them. “Narrative” means their spin; their attempt to substitute a preferred account of events for what actually happened. It does not work, of course. But failure does not deter the Left. They ignore it.
Islam has a long history of invading Europe and sometimes succeeding in conquering parts of it. It is a history of fierce onslaughts, cruel subjugation, and desperate counter-attacks – because Islam most definitely did not belong in Europe. (Remember Lepanto, Poitiers, the Gates of Vienna …) Only in that sense, “Islam holds a place in Europe’s history”. But it is not a place to celebrate. Europe learnt bitter lessons from Muslim invasions, but some Europeans are choosing to forget them. Either the High Representative does not know the history – which seems unlikely – or she is deliberately distorting the nature of the Islamic effect on Europe, making it sound nicely integrated and enriching and delicious by putting it into the context of “our culture” and even “our food”. Why? Because she and her elite comrades want to destroy the existing order and build their fantasy world, their utopia, their paradise-on-earth in its stead. And they have some confused ideas of how to go about it, including the flooding of Europe with Muslims from the Third World.
Certainly Islam has a place in Europe’s present – but as a threat, a terror, a horror, a dread; of which the High Representative and her like-minded colleagues are pertinaciously doing all they can to ensure a continuance well into the future.
As Europeans, we should be proud of our diversity. The fear of diversity comes from weakness, not from a strong culture.
“Diversity” is the top favorite buzzword.
I shall be even more clear on that: the very idea of a clash of civilizations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union – let alone with reality.
She means that the European Union was supposed to prevent war between European states. The original concept did not involve Muslim immigrants.
Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.
“Blocs”? The European Union is a “bloc”. Nation-states are what the Left hates. They like forming blocs such as the European Union – with a view to eventual world (socialist) government.
Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe – that is my core message – they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.
“They” have no clue what Europe and the European identity are? It is typical of the Left to accuse their opponents of the very thing they are guilty of themselves. Again the High Representative, with her false account of European history, chooses to overlook the fact that the indigenous European populations are dying out; that the immigrant Muslim populations are increasing rapidly; that the inevitable result must be Muslim majorities throughout Europe. And above all she chooses not to notice that however much the Europeans want to mingle the Muslims in with them in an enriched and delicious new European culture, the Muslims themselves desire no such thing. Their aim is to impose their law, their culture (and their halal food) on Europe. That means the enslavement of women, the execution of homosexuals, the abolition of the wine industry, the tearing down of paintings from the walls of the art galleries, the end of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press – to name but a few of the effects of Islamic rule.
The High Representative, who joined the Communist Youth early in life and has remained steadily on the Left, is of course a feminist, and is all for gay marriage. She cannot admit even to herself that there is a contradiction between those ideals and the doctrines of Islam. It is to be doubted that she would ever bring herself to read the Koran and the hadith. The Islam she wants to welcome into Europe is simply colorful, cooks exotic meals, worships quietly in its mosques – and why should not Europe tolerate that, enjoy the meals, admire the turbans, the fezzes, the burkhas? It’s a travel-brochure picture of Islam that sits in her pretty little head. And the less pretty heads of almost all the leaders of Europe.
This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe.
Make it accepted “beyond Europe”. Where can she mean? Could she be intending to exert her efforts at imposing huge quantities of colorful and delicious Islam on – America?
For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project.
Ah! She has noticed that the Islamic State is not colorful and delicious. Therefore, in her perfect logic, it cannot be Islam. Real Islam faces the Islamic State as a “challenge”, just as the non-islamic world does. She says nothing about the age-old conflict between Sunni and Shia. She pays no attention to the diversity within Islam – accompanied by passionate hatred, total intolerance.
Now she switches to the Arabic word for the Islamic State, the word its Muslim opponents use for it: “Da’esh” – in hope of reinforcing her claim that it is not truly Islamic.
Talking about Da’esh, the king of Jordan told the European Parliament a few months ago: “The motive is not faith, it is power; power pursued by ripping countries and communities apart in sectarian conflicts, and inflicting suffering across the world”
Western media like to refer to Daʼesh with the word “medieval”. This does not help much to understand the real nature of the threat we are facing. Daʼesh is something completely new. This is a modern movement, reinterpreting religion in an innovative and radical way. It is a movement that, rather than preserving Islam, wants us to trash centuries of Islamic culture in the name of their atrocities.
Islam does not derive from medieval times. Worse – it arose in the Dark Ages.
There is nothing new about it. It is not “interpreting religion” – by which she means “interpreting Islam” – in “an innovative and radical way”. It is doing what Muhammad commanded Muslims to do.
Da’esh is not a State, and it is not a State for Islam. The Grand Imam of al Azhar, Ahmed el Tayeb, argued: “There is no Islamic State, but a number of Islamic countries that the terrorists are trying to destroy.” This is the reality we face and we don’t say this often, but we should do so to dismantle their narrative. Sometimes, by describing the atrocities of Da’esh, we do them a favor: atrocities are part of their propaganda. The more we describe them as evil, the happier they are. Daʼesh is Islam’s worst enemy in today’s world. Its victims are first and foremost Muslim people. Islam is a victim itself.
This is not to say that we should overlook the ideology of Daʼesh. If we want to fight it, we need first of all to know it and to understand it. We need to know where it comes from, and how it got to be what it is.
Really? Know and understand it? No. She doesn’t mean that. She already KNOWS what it is all about. It is about Muslims being poor and jobless and not getting enough help and understanding and welfare and love from us Europeans. If they don’t get enough of all that, they might rape hundreds of German women, run a truck over crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, disembowel and castrate people watching a show in Paris, and gouge their eyes out. And it would all be our fault.
See? They went and did all those things, didn’t they? All because we weren’t nice enough to them.
First of all, I believe the Daʼesh propaganda fills a void, a vacuum. The terrorists are recruiting people who feel they do not hold a place in their own communities, that they do not belong in their own societies.
I was very much impressed, when I was visiting Tunis … Tunisia is a modern country and still is one of the countries with the highest number of foreign fighters in Da’esh. I asked a young girl, very engaged with civil society, why she believed so many people her age were joining Daʼesh. She told me something I will never forget: “You know, people my age in Tunisia feel they have no place in the organigram.
She said that? “The organigram”? According to our dashboard dictionary, an “organigram” is an organizational chart. So what organizational chart do young people in Tunisia feel they have no place in? Who drew the chart? Why? What the hell was she – what the hell is the “High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” – talking about?
They are looking for their own box, for a role, for defining who they are. They ask: where is my place? What is my role? This is the real challenge not only in the Arab world, but here in Europe.
Later she deplores the idea of people being in”boxes”. But consistency is the last thing to look for here.
That is why I believe the best way to prevent radicalization in Europe and in our region is not only education, but also employment. We have so many well educated and frustrated young people, with a lot of energy, a lot of willingness to find their place in their society and their community. And they have lost hope that they will be able to do so.
This does not justify the choice to turn to terrorism. People are responsible for their own actions and their own crimes. Still, if we look at ways to prevent radicalization we need jobs and good jobs. Not just a place in the “organigram”, but a good place.
Da’esh longs for people who have lost their place in society, their role, their sense of belonging and hope. We need inclusive societies. So many times we have heard a narrative opposing security and open societies. It is a false dilemma. We should start saying more clearly that a society can be stable and safe only when it is democratic.
Of course I know each country has a specific history, and needs to follow its own path towards democracy. Not so long ago, and still today, there are people in “the West” arguing democracy can be exported militarily. We have all realized – in this room for sure – how bad this idea was. This does not mean we are not ready to support democracy and democratic processes: quite the contrary. But we need to consider the specificity of each process.
While she would like to “make Islam accepted beyond Europe”, she would only export democracy to Islam by extremely sensitive means – sensitive to the point of inaction. In fact, if other countries are not democratic, we must “humbly respect” whatever they are for the sake of diversity.
We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength.
It is so manifestly a disaster imposed on Europe by weak thinking, that this claim of hers is simply ludicrous. If she said that European culture was eclectic – that it traditionally chooses the best of everything from everywhere and absorbs it and uses it for its own purposes – she would be right. But she is referring to multiculturalism, which in effect is Islamization, terrorism, bloodshed and suffering.
She proceeds to get into an awful muddle of self-contradiction. Read the following quickly, don’t try to make sense of it. A quick read gives you the right impression. It is confused nonsense. And so typical of EU speeches that to anyone who has heard or read a few, it comes across as self-satirizing:
But we should also show respect for diversity when we look outside our borders. We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. This is difficult, but maybe a bit less difficult for us Europeans. We know diversity and complexity – especially here in Brussels – from our own experience. For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture. Religion plays a role in politics – not always for good, not always for bad. Religion can be part of the process. What makes the difference is whether the process is democratic or not. That is what matters to us, the key point. We need to work for regional frameworks, in the Middle East and the Arab world, in which every one has a responsibility and a chance to contribute – Muslim, Christian, Jew or non-believer, Sunni or Shia, Arab, Kurd, whatever. One of the weaknesses of our policies so far has been to focus on dividing lines, as if everyone can fit in a box. People do not live in boxes. People live in communities and societies. The more open the communities and the societies are, the better it is for the democratic process. All communities should be granted with their own rights and their own responsibilities, with an opportunity to do their part for the stability and the security of their own country. This is the path we are finally trying to follow in some key Arab countries, like Iraq: we are finally understanding we need to put people together, not to tear them apart. Inclusiveness can be the key to our success – both when we talk foreign policy and when we deal with our home affairs. Sometimes we go out of our borders and preach, but then we look at ourselves and we falter. Enlargement processes involve us and our partners for years, but maybe we should also take time to brush up on the “acquis” with some Member States. We have a problem of internal coherence – when it comes to rights, to democracy, to the respect of diversity, when it comes to some of the difficult choices we make, including on migration policies. The battle for hearts and minds is not only a battle we need to fight in the Middle East, but also here inside our European Union. It is a difficult battle: this is not a popular argument, not an easy issue. After years of economic and political weakness, our societies are naturally afraid. When you are weak, the reaction is closing the door and pretending to solve issues with isolation. On the contrary, the only chance we have as Europeans is to be proud and strong of our basics: and our basics are respect and diversity. Let me say something more about migration. We have supported the “bring back our girls” campaign for Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. There is such a contradiction between our solidarity when these girls are far away, and our lack of solidarity when they are at our door. This is impossible to sustain. In the coming days and months we need to find solutions not only for the girls in Nigeria, but for their sisters and mothers and daughters who are forced to flee by the very same radicalized movements. If we do not realize this, our whole message risks to sound empty. We need to pass a cultural message, to lay the basis for our political message: any attempt to divide the peoples of Europe into “us” and “them” brings us in the wrong direction. The migrants and us. The Muslims and us. The Jews and us, as anti-Semitism has not been defeated at all. The “other” and us. We learnt from our history that we all are someone else’s “other”. The fear of the other can only lead us to new conflicts.
The “other” is another of their buzzwords. Professor Edward Said, who found excuses for Palestinian terrorism, accused Westerners of seeing Muslims as the “other”. He did not notice that Muslims see Westerners as the “other”. Or recognize the plain fact of otherness inherent in all classification.
I hope we can work together to increase our self confidence. When we say we are European, we should also remember what is the root of our European culture: our diversity. That is our strength, and we should learn to be proud of it.
Such is the intellectual prowess of the elite who govern our lives. Their speeches are shallow, vague, inconsistent, self-contradictory, platitudinous, doctrinaire, under-informed and deceitful. Worse than dangerous, such thinking is a cause of the atrocities that Muslims are inflicting on Europeans – most recently in Paris, Brussels, and Nice.
One must bear in mind that none of the EU bureaucrats and representatives have been elected to foist their insane policies on the peoples of Europe. The members of the elite choose them – not for intelligence, plainly, but for conformity with their own “politically correct” Leftist opinions.
The sooner the European Union disintegrates, the better for Europe. The sooner the proud-to-be-humble High Representatives shut-up and go home, the better for the world.
(Hat-tip to Chauncey Tinker for the link to the speech))
Europeans are at last growing angry with their ruling elites and forming groups of resistance.
Feeling themselves and their power seriously threatened, the elites – politicians, academics, media people, all of them on the left even if some of them call themselves conservatives – label the groups “far-right”.
Many voices are prophesying civil war.
We quote from an article at Gatestone by Yves Mamou, titled France: The Coming Civil War:
“We are on the verge of a civil war.”
That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from the head of France’s homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar.
He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times. On July 12th, he warned a commission of members of parliament, in charge of a survey about the terrorist attacks of 2015, about it.
In May 2016, he delivered almost the same message to another commission of members of parliament, this time in charge of national defense. “Europe,” he said, “is in danger. Extremism is on the rise everywhere, and we are now turning our attention to some far-right movements who are preparing a confrontation.”
What kind of confrontation? “Intercommunity confrontations”, he said – polite for “a war against Muslims”. “One or two more terrorist attacks,” he added, “and we may well see a civil war.”
In February 2016, in front of a senate commission in charge of intelligence information, he said again: ” We are looking now at far-right extremists who are just waiting for more terrorist attacks to engage in violent confrontation”.
No one knows if the truck terrorist, who plowed into the July 14th Bastille Day crowd in Nice and killed more than 80 people, will be the trigger for a French civil war, but it might help to look at what creates the risk of one in France and other countries, such as Germany or Sweden.
The main reason is the failure of the state.
France is the main target of repeated Islamist attacks; the more important Islamist terrorist bloodbaths took place at the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher supermarket of Vincennes (2015); the Bataclan, its nearby restaurants and the Stade de France stadium, (2015); the failed attack on theThalys train; the beheading of Hervé Cornara (2015); the assassination of two policemen in Magnanville in June (2016), and now the truck-ramming in Nice, on the day commemorating the French Revolution of 1789.
Most of those attacks were committed by French Muslims: citizens on their way back from Syria (the Kouachi brothers at Charlie Hebdo), or by French Islamists (Larossi Abballa who killed a police family in Magnanville last June) who later claimed their allegiance to Islamic State (ISIS). The truck killer in Nice was Tunisian but married with a French woman, three children together, and living quietly in Nice until he decided to murder …
At each of these tragic episodes, the head of state, President François Hollande, refused to name the enemy, refused to name Islamism – and especially refused to name French Islamists – as the enemy of French citizens.
For Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”. Even when the president does dare to name “Islamism” the enemy, he refuses to say he will close all Salafist mosques, prohibit the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations in France, or ban veils for women in the street and at university. No, instead, the French president reaffirms his determination for military actions … abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.
For France’s head of state, the deployment of soldiers on the national ground is for defensive actions only: a dissuasive policy, not an offensive rearmament of the Republic against an internal enemy.
So confronted with this failure by our elite … how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate? …
The civil war began sixteen years ago, with the second Intifada. When Palestinians invented suicide attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, French Muslims began to terrorize Jews living peacefully in France. For sixteen years, Jews — in France —were slaughtered, attacked, tortured and stabbed by French Muslim citizens supposedly to avenge Palestinian people in the West Bank.
When a group of French citizens who are Muslims declares war on another group of French citizens who are Jews, what do you call it?
For the French establishment, it is not a civil war, just a regrettable misunderstanding between two “ethnic” communities.
Until now, no one has wanted to establish a connection between these attacks and the murderous attack in Nice against people who were not necessarily Jews – and name it as it should be named: a civil war.
For the very politically correct French establishment, the danger of a civil war will begin only if anyone retaliates against French Muslims; if everyone just submits to their demands, everything is all right. Until now, no one thinks that the terrorist attacks against Jews by French Muslims; against Charlie Hebdo’s journalists by French Muslims; against an entrepreneur who was beheaded a year ago by a French Muslim; against young Ilan Halimi by a group of Muslims; against schoolchildren in Toulouse by a French Muslim; against the passengers on the Thalys train by a French Muslim, against the innocent people in Nice by an almost French Muslim were the symptoms of a civil war. These bloodbaths remain, still today something like a climatic catastrophe, a kind of tragic misunderstanding.
In France, who most complains about Muslim immigration? Who most suffers from local Islamism? Who most likes to drink a glass of wine or eat a ham-and-butter sandwich? The poor and the old who live close to Muslim communities, because they do not have the money to move someplace else.
Today, as a result, millions of the poor and the old in France are ready to elect Marine Le Pen, president of the rightist Front National, as the next president of the Republic for the simple reason that the only party that wants to fight illegal immigration is the Front National.
Because, however, these French old and poor want to vote for the Front National, they have become the enemy of the French establishment, right and left. What is the Front National saying to these people? “We are going to restore France as a nation of French people”. And the poor and the old believe it – because they have no choice.
Similarly, the poor and the old in Britain had no choice but to vote for Brexit. They took the first tool given them to express their disappointment at living in a society they did not like anymore. They did not vote to say, “Kill these Muslims who are transforming my country, stealing my job and soaking up my taxes”. They were just protesting a society that a global elite had begun to transform without their consent.
In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid, too racists to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not.
The global elites made another choice: they took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. The global elites also chose not to fight Islamism, because Muslims vote globally for the global elite. Muslims in Europe also offer a big “carrot” to the global elite: they vote collectively.
In France, 93% of Muslims voted for the current president, François Hollande, in 2012. In Sweden, the Social Democrats reported that 75% of Swedish Muslims voted for them in the general election of 2006; and studies show that the “red-green” bloc gets 80-90% of the Muslim vote.
If the establishment does not want to see that civil war was already declared by extremist Muslims first – if they do not want to see that the enemy is not the Front National in France, the AfD in Germany, or the Sweden Democrats – but Islamism in France, in Belgium, in Great Britain, in Sweden – then a civil war will happen.
France, like Germany and Sweden, has a military and police strong enough to fight against an internal Islamist enemy. But first, they have to name it and take measures against it.
If they do not – if they leave their native citizens in despair, with no other means than to arm themselves and retaliate – yes, civil war is inevitable.
Pat Condell exults in the result of a referendum that takes Britain out of the corrupt dictatorship of the European Union:
The established elites who govern the western world do not really like democracy. They’ll let us vote, but if we don’t vote for what they want, they’ll look for a way to nullify our choice.
British Home Secretary Theresa May voted in a recent referendum for Britain to remain in the corrupt bureaucratic dictatorship of the European Union (EU). A majority voted for the country to leave it.
Yet Theresa May is one of the most likely candidates to replace David Cameron, who is resigning as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister because he had voted to remain; and then it would be she who’d be tasked with carrying out the withdrawal of Britain from the EU.
We quote from an article on the website of our British blog-roll associate, Chauncey Tinker.
The effect of the Brexit result for the EU referendum has had a seismic impact on UK politics. Both the two main UK political parties, Conservatives and Labour are in disarray.
The prime minister has announced his resignation triggering a leadership contest for the Conservatives. Boris Johnson, long touted as Cameron’s probable successor, has had to drop out of the race soon after it began because it became clear he did not have enough support. George Osborne, also long rumoured as another possible successor, vanished from public view altogether for quite a while despite the fact that he is still the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might have had to be registered as a missing person if he had stayed out of sight for much longer than he did. He had backed the Remain campaign.
Worst of all, Theresa May the home secretary, has thrown her hat into the ring and has so far garnered by far the most endorsements from Conservative MPs. This is something of a worst case scenario as far as I am concerned. She announced for Remain, in a totally cynical and calculated career move. She gambled and lost. The vote went for Leave, it is ridiculous that she is even standing in the leadership contest.
She would very likely do her utmost to delay setting the process of withdrawal in motion as long possible.
As part of her leadership bid announcement she has stated her plan to delay the Brexit process AT LEAST until the end of the year, i.e. for 6 months, and hey, who knows maybe even longer. [She said: -]
And there should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear, which means Article 50 should not be invoked before the end of this year.
You never know, it could even take a year or two…
To a degree extraordinary even among politicians, she has the knack of serving both of two opposed causes simultaneously
One of the issues that mattered most to the voters who want British independence from Europe, is that of immigration; in particular – though it is not often or loudly said – Muslim immigration.
In 2015 [Theresa May] made a tough-sounding speech saying that high immigration was bad for social cohesion. She made this speech at a time when immigration was running at the highest rates of all time, and – she was the home secretary and had been in that post for nearly 5 years. This also despite the fact that the Conservative party she was a part of had been elected on the promise that they would reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands (“no ifs, no buts” were Cameron’s words). The home secretary is responsible for immigration, just as a window cleaner is responsible for cleaning windows. You would not expect a window cleaner to make a speech about how dirty the windows are, after he had failed to clean the windows.
Many foolish people were eagerly expecting this speech was going to be the start of her bid for leadership of the Conservatives. However, their expectation was also that she would lead the LEAVE campaign because surely, surely, she would not have a hope of reducing net immigration while we remained a part of a union that regards free movement of people as one of its most important principles?? In the event, she decided her best bet was to come out for REMAIN, and sit on the sidelines! A wait and see approach that was clearly all about maximizing her chances of gaining the leadership following what she expected would happen, a vote for REMAIN. By announcing for REMAIN but also staying out of the campaign she was hedging her bets and also crucially, avoiding the alienation of the Tory MPs who were campaigning for LEAVE. No principles involved. If you are doubting this, just ask yourself, why did she not CAMPAIGN FERVENTLY for Remain if she believed it was the best course for the UK to stay in the EU?
Her talent for seeming to uphold a principle while at the same time advocating for its opposite is manifest in what she says about free speech:
An example of great oratory or an example of Orwellian doublespeak?:
We’re not talking about curbing free speech. We recognize that free speech is one of our values. But we have to look at the impact some people have in terms of the poisonous ideology they plant in people’s minds that will lead them to challenge, lead them to undermine the values we share as a country.
I’ll translate – what she was saying here is that she is planning to curb free speech. Apparently one of “our” values is tolerance of those who have no tolerance of our way of life. In her view, If we have a problem with these intolerant beliefs of other people, then we should shut up about it, because it might make those intolerant people angry.
Just as she defends free speech by arguing against it, and tolerance by submitting to intolerance, she defends democracy by silencing the people:
Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders (will soon be before parliament). Around the time she first proposed these orders, she was calling for it to be made illegal to ‘undermine democracy’, but these orders would themselves undermine democracy because they would give the government of the day the power to silence their critics, and interfere with freedom of speech in any way they saw fit. Democracy has no meaning without freedom of speech. A home secretary who creates legislation that (if applied logically and consistently at least) would criminalize herself and her colleagues in the government is a type of idiot that should not be in government in the first place, let alone be the Prime Minister (why am I even needing to point this out to people?).
Snooper’s Charter – she has pushed for internet history of all UK citizens to be stored for a year as part of this bill … The objective of this bill is not to catch Islamic terrorists, contrary to the prevalent misconception. The bill is designed to enable the government to gain more power over the oiks, the ordinary people, you and me. The records will be used in conjunction with the Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders to find and silence the government’s critics. Most Islamic extremists tend to hide in plain sight and are quite easy to spot, for example the killers of Lee Rigby were known associates of Anjem Choudary, one of them even appeared in a video available on Youtube with that notorious Islamic preacher. There is no need whatever to gather data on every single person in the country in order to find these people. Targeted investigations are what is needed. …
The intolerance to which she has ambivalently submitted is of course Islamic intolerance. Only she will not call it Islamic:
She has routinely trotted out the “Nothing to do with Islam” line following terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims, even when they were justifying their acts with direct recitations from the Koran.
She has claimed that Sharia Courts benefit Britain.
Yet she is against the unequal treatment of women which Sharia law demands.
For more on this, we turn to a report in the Telegraph:
Sharia teaching is being “misused” and “exploited” to discriminate against Muslim women, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed, as she unveiled plans for an independent inquiry into the issue.
But she insisted that many British people “benefit a great deal” from the guidance offered by Sharia teaching and other religious codes.
Prof Mona Siddiqui, the expert in Islamic theology and regular on BBC Radio 4’s Thought For The Day slot, is to chair a review lasting up to 18 months to investigate whether British law is being broken in the name of Sharia ideas. …
Mrs May emphasised that it would look at how Sharia ideas were being “misused or exploited” rather than a broader examination of whether the teaching itself discriminates against women.
Mrs May added:
Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer. A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern. There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen.
There are some 85 Sharia courts operating in Britain.
Here in summary are some of the laws it is their business to enforce:
A man is entitled to up to four wives, but a woman may only have one husband.
The husband (or his family) pays a “bride price” or “dower” (mahr, which is money or property paid to the bride). This “mahr” is in exchange for sexual submission (tamkin). Sexual submission is traditionally regarded as unconditional consent for the remainder of the marriage. [In other words, he buys her.]
A man can divorce his wife by making a declaration (talaq) in front of an Islamic judge irrespective of the woman’s consent. Even her presence is not required. For a woman to divorce a man (khula), his consent is required.
“Temporary marriage” (even for less than a half an hour) is allowed by some scholars, others regard it as a form of prostitution. A report by the Gatestone Institute charts its development in Britain.
Wife beating is permitted [in fact, prescribed –Koran 4:34].
There is no minimum age for marriage.
A divorced Muslim woman loses her children.
A woman inherits only half as much as a male heir.
A woman’s testimony is court is treated as half the value of a man’s testimony.
A woman must be “cut” [genitally mutilated].
Women are segregated in mosques and other assemblies.
Women must cover themselves in public.
These are not “interpretations” of Sharia. They are explicitly part and parcel of Sharia law. And they are all utterly incompatible with British common and statute law.
No one in any British government apparently thought to read Sharia law before permitting the establishment of institutions to enforce it. (The former Archbishop of Canterbury, the top primate of the established Anglican church, was particularly zealous in campaigning for Sharia courts to operate in Britain.)
How does Theresa May, whether in her present capacity as Home Secretary, or as a possible future Prime Minister, propose to preserve Sharia courts, whose business it is to discriminate between men and women, and at the same time make sure that only British law, which insists on treating all sane adult persons equally, rules in Britain?
How will she, aided by the review being conducted under a Muslim chairwoman, “interpret” Sharia to make women equal under it as they are under British law?
Well, if anyone can manage it, Theresa May is the one. Self-contradiction is her speciality.