The Eurabia Code, Part I

I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country’s standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab in the back myth – the idea that Germany didn’t lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews – helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.

However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.

In contrast, Eurabia – which asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn’t happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders – is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn’t fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.

Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown’s massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown’s fictional account “documents” a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I’m not sure my work will become equally popular, but I’m pretty sure it’s closer to reality.

The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye’or in her book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.” My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

“Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives’ demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel.”

Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.

The use of the term “Eurabia” was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided “to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

Bat Ye’or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.

During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.

However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye’or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.

This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans,
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas “dialogue.” All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye’or explained how “in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations – a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.”

Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members – from all major European political parties – active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project's prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU’s political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.

On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.

Bat Ye’or thinks that “Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values.”

In the preface to her book, she states that “This book describes Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers.”

The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a '”civilization of dhimmitude.”' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation “dhimmi.” It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.

Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian “correctness” imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

According to Ye’or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: “It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it.”

Are Bat Ye’or’s claims correct, or even possible?

Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, “the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte – who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease.”

In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. “People of Egypt,” he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, “You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur’an.”

According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, “God is great and Muhammad is his prophet.” To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada – the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one’s conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.

The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.

A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.

The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.

Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle’s condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France – as well as the rest of Western Europe - had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser’s Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.

It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.

Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: “We have finally obtained this ‘Europe à la française’ that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French.” From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.

President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.”

Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.

Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years – at least from the 1920s – Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.”

In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation.” However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.

A federation is, of course, a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.”

The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North call the European Union “a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.

The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France’s dilemma won’t help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?

10 million in USA, 10 mil in EU and 200 mil in India

Out of 1 bil islamists, both USA and EU have each taken more than 10 million. Out of 1 bil of India, what percent have you taken? Less than 1 million?

Out of 1 bil of China, what percent have you taken? Much more than 1 million, right?

India has taken not only 200 million islamist savages who are really pakki wards but also refugees from Iran, Tibet, Afghanistan, even Palestine!! I call India the moral super power though it is one of the **poorest** countries on earth.

Boycotting/shunning the sneaky islamists and creepy chinese is sound for your safety and security!!


Mr Voyager: I don't question the rôle of left-wing parties, nor the European integration process before 1973, but I do question the thesis of Miss Ye'or that mass non-Western immigration was caused by the oil-crisis.

As you correctly point out, the immigration already started earlier than 1973 and left-wing parties were staunch supporters of this.

Nevertheless I believe that the multicultural ideology came from America and was firmly supported by the so-called 'Holocaust-industry', warning that immigration restriction is creating new Auschwitzes in Africa, Asia, etc.

There is no metaphore so strong in the West-European world as the resurrection of the death camps of Hitler and this metaphore was revived during Yom Kipur (1973), when Israël was on the brink of defeat.

I challenge you to prove that Arabs have had more influence on Western thinking on nation-states and immigration than the Jewish image of a new Auschwitz.

Voyager 2

@ Bruyns

I think that there is something that rings true about your thesis of "multicultural ideology" having come from America to Europe, but it was quickly and eagerly embraced by Europe's 'elites' whereas the counter-reaction has been underway in America for some time now (since the Reagan years). A lot of things, including 'cultural trends', have floated across the Atlantic usually with a lag of between 10-20 years. The naive-left orthodxy reached its (cultural and political) peak in America in the late 70's under Jimmy Carter, and has since then been in 'retreat' (even during the Clinton years). In Europe it probably peaked in the 1990's, and the real question is if, today, it is not too late to escape 'Eurabia' (because of demographic trends and of freedom-of-speech impediments in Europe).

There is no way that 'Voyager' could "prove" what you asked of him in your last sentence. The present multicultural nightmare in Europe is entirely of western 'elites' own making, mainly through the impact on society of the 'victory' of extreme moral-relativism, marxism, and deconstructionism in western Academia (and consequently in the rest of the educational establishment and the media). It has nothing to do with any influence of "Arabs" on western thinking. The 'Arabs' have simply replaced the 'old jews' and the 'proletariat' in the (absurd) victimology of western academia.

testing the Eurabia thesis

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that this 1st installment is just an introduction, and the explanation of how the thesis is going to be tested will follow. I say this because I see little that is falsifiable in this installment. The only exceptions are

(1) did Arab immigration to Europe suddenly increase in the early 1970s? and

(2) were textbooks on Islamic history less sympathetic to Islam before the 1970s?

Of course, even if the answers are yes and yes, this might be due to reasons other than the Euro-Arab Dialogue; but then the burden of the proof is on the opponents of the Eurabia thesis to point to these other reasons.

Immigration and ideology

The problem with immigration of non-Westerners to Europe is that it is very diverse: Germany has a lot of Turks (non-Arabs) and barely Arabs, while the British have Pakistani's (non-Arabs as well) and barely Turks.

The key for mass non-Western immigration can not be found in islamism, which is rejected by most regimes in the Middle East, or Arab nationalism, because most non-Western immigrants were not Arab.

Besides this, there has been only one major development in the history schoolbooks since the 70s: the growing prominence of the fate of the Jews during WW II, i.e. the Holocaust, closely linked with the combat against competorary 'racism' and immigration restriction.

Aliens in Europe

I find your comment hard to fathom Bruyns. The immigration to Europe was initially to nation-states as "Europe" did not really exist. Britain did not join until 1972, the year before the Yom Kippur Oil Embargo.........and Denmark too only joined at that time as did RoI. How Spain managed with North Africans at that pre-EEC period I don't know, maybe Franco was less encouraging than subsequent governments.

Germany acquired Turks, the GDR acquired Vietnamese. France took in Algerians, Britain recruited Kashmiris - not even Pakistanis as such but Mirpuris from the one disputed part of Partitioned India which wante to remain indeoendent of Pakistan and India.

Why did Britain import them ? In 1955 the Conservative Govt banned night-shifts in textile mills for women and employers needed male labour to work for female wages at night. Thus did the dying textile industry get propped up beyond its expiration date - with as a Professor on Sabine Christiansen put it so succinctly last night - "the privatisation of gain from immigration coupled with the socialisation of the downsides".

In 1971 Britain capped immigration with an Immigration Act. It was the return of Labour in 1997 which removed the controls, the Primary Purpose Rule, the Exit Checks were removed by the Conservatives and Port Immigration Officials downsized. The trick of re-designating asylum-seekers as "work-permit" holders was introduced, and the frequent policy of "indefinite leave to remain" being granted to hide backlogs of claims was used by Labour and Conservative Govts.


In fact it could be said that Socialist Parties welcomed immigration as a globalised welfare state, and the Rightist Parties as a means of weakening unions and lowering wage costs. Thus both party factions conspired against the public.

They forgot however that the Subcontinent Britain had left in 1947 was now becoming an integral part of British society as more and more family members were reunited and first cousins were imported as spouses.

As Pakistan became a bigger and bigger basket case the fanaticism of extremists became imported and the satellite TV era made the Muslim world a reality even in Bury and Bradford...............and soon the global TV broadcasts of images could weld a consciousness within a large illiterate populace too poorly educated to integrate within host cultures.

In the 1970s the BBC could command audiences of 17-22 million for top programmes - today perhaps 7 million or lower - the satellite TV fragmented the audience and the common experience of events was lost even for native Britons - there was less and less for immigrants to integrate into.............even the natives live in ghettoes........virtual or real.

Frustration is commonplace and violence is for the inarticulate. It is often mindless but that is common to skinheads...........and Muslims have their own gangs and their own gang rituals - and the symbolism of the 9/11 "Trojan Horse" airliners created a powerful narrative to attract deadbeat youth...........and Western society is full of that. Given the right narrative White European youth could express dissatisfaction in focused violence - 66 years ago it could and did.

Re: Conspiracy

Mr. Impossible,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a Europe made "subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers" is already a fait accompli. Yet at present, Europe has extensive ties -- cultural, economic, military -- to Israel, which are wholly incompatible with the ideology of jihad. I can only conclude that the islamization of Europe has not completed.

Similarly, you say that the collapse of France is underway. My understanding of the word "collapse" is as a sudden event, not something stretched out over decades -- certainly, in the past nations have collapsed in a matter of days. But semantic quibbles aside, I think you are asserting knowledge which you cannot actually have. Should Le Pen come to power in France, the word "collapse" may be very inaccurate.

Seeing past the confusion

"The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda."
To really understand what exactly backfired this 2 part article.

Its was assumed that everyone, even religions had a price...this assumption was understandable since christianity sold out so quickly to the social gospel.Surely Islam will follow suit given the right incentives.


Treason in the Church: Trading Truth for a "Social Gospel"

"At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this [secret] system had to be greatly extended... the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group.

This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company....

In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and The Council of Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris."[6]

Very interesting essay

After reading this essay, I am left with a question.  If the situation is as dire as I've heard, when does the breaking point arrive?  When does Europe become an enemy to freedom, or will it?

I've read many of your essays before, and this one is as well written as the others.  Fjordman has a very readable style based on history and fact that never takes the easy route.

French and American connection

French are cozy with all islamofascists - i.e with uncivilized pakkis too. Transfering technology to any islamist state is dangerous at the least.

Now in the name of being a "key ally" of USA, pakkis are given a free rein to do whatever barbaric savagery they want in Kashmir with no Western check. In reality, the pakkis' genocidal war crimes in Kashmir and crimes against humanity against Pundits and other indigent culture of India are justificaiton enough to haul them to the Hague.

The Serbian Christians who fought against the savage islamist terrorists have been jailed in the Hague perhaps unnecessarily.


One way in which to distinguish between plausible and implausible conspiracy theories is to take note of how the latter often attribute super-human qualities to one group or another, whether it is Jews controlling the world, or the U.S. government manipulating al-Qaeda for its own nefarious purposes.

To assert that Europe's current mess of immigration, leading up to a single state motivated by jihad ideology, was planned in every detail imputes not just cynicism, but inhuman cunning to bumbling eurocrats. It must strain the credulity of Fjordman himself, for after all, the collapse of France as a result of that policy would have to be part of the master plan?

@ Bart Kachelaar

To assert that Europe's current mess of immigration, leading up to a single state motivated by jihad ideology, was planned in every detail imputes ...

This statement misrepresents what has been previously written and argued. Remember the story (parable) about Frankenstein's monster Mr. Kachelaar? It appears you have.

Fact is often stranger than fiction.

Furthermore, we are not talking about a theory. Europe's current imbroglio with Islam is FACT. We are now talking in the past tense here.

The collapse of France is underway. National collapses don't happen overnight, or before one's eyes as a building might; rather it takes place over a period of one, two, or three decades. Even when finished, you are never quite sure the collapse has taken place until the opportunity for new symbolism to show itself (displacing the old) is presented.

Have you ever considered if it might be you falling for conspiracy theories? After all, if you believe the Dhimmified MSM is selling you truth and facts these days, then you must (by your own definition) be attributing super-human qualities to that particular group.

Amat victoria curam.

I Fully Concur with Voyager

During mid to late 1970s I worked for British Nuclear Fuels at their uranium enrichment facility, Capenhurst, Cheshire. In those days, gas centrifuge process was a top secret project, subject (as elsewhere) to the Official Secrets Act. 

I can confirm, the world leaders at that time in this technology were Germans, Dutch, & British. I believe it was a British invention, but the Germans & Dutch introduced what was called the 3L machine (much longer centrifuge tube strengthened by binding tube with plastic --possibly nylon-- thread) making a more efficient isotope separator. I saw them testing these machines (hidden behind curtains) as I had security clearance.
Back then, it looked like a scene from Star Trek.

During the 1970s, the Capenhurst facility (then a Gvnmt agency) was guarded by a special branch of military police, who were armed, and entitled to use deadly force.

Once the centrifuge idea was proven I saw it come into production, for the first time, circa 1978. A private company --Urenco (Uranium Enrichment Company)-- was set up few years later to advance commercial operations. About same time, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was privatised to become BNFL.

Knowing what I know about Holland, and Dutch, they would most certainly have been the most likely to have lax security. There is absolutely no question, A. Q. Khan (and the Iranians) got his knowledge from Europe. This is a sad & pathetic story, but not end of the world. Just one more silly chapter that gives us the moral authority to do what we must do.

Britain's Rolls Royce invited Russians to tour their jet engine facility (circa 1948). Russians stood on lathe shavings to impregnate their shoes with metal alloy they did not have, giving them ability to develop engines for MIG-15, thus enjoying air superiority over Korea!!

Well done to Voyager for highlighting this issue.


A. Q. Khan

It was the Dutch who proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan and North Korea and Iran through Urenco the German-British-Dutch facility producing gas-centrifuges to enrich uranium. It was A. Q. Khan of Pakistan who was given the blueprints which he sold on to all the basket-case dictatorships which wanted a nuclear warhead on a rocket

Khan files

The Dutch secret service was closing in on Khan, but it was the CIA who told the Dutch prime minister to back down. If you want proliferate weapons of mass destruction you conduct it not directly but via client states, like Holland is a client state to USA.

More Urenco



Islamic Bomb

In late 1974 UCN put Khan on the duty of translating highly classified design documents for two advanced German machines, the G-1 and G-2. These two designs were supposed to be the most sophisticated industrial enrichment technology in the world at the time.

Why would a Pakistani be asked to translate from German to Dutch in an Anglo-German-Dutch Government Facility ?


France has always been very close to the Arab world, but solely for colonial/strategic reasons, not cultural. For example: After the Algerian war of independence general de Gaulle refused to admit hundredthousands of Arab auxiliaries of the French army into France fearing islamization.

The book of Bat Ye'or is written from a hyper-etnocentric perspective: Israël is subject to a continental-sized conspiracy between Europeans and Arabs, while Israël has no significant strategic value.

My third point is that America has known the same development when it comes to mass immigration a non-Westerners, the coming of multicultural idea's, etc. since the 1960s.

And there is a dominant idea in both American and European societies which has fostered these developments: The idea that immigration restriction in the 1930s has blocked the Jews from escaping Germany and later the Holocaust. Jews always have been activists of unrestricted immigration:

Mass-immigration from non-Western countries was not only in the interest of Jews outside America, but also for the position of Jews inside America: Leonard S. Glickman of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, who stated to an on-line Jewish journal 'Forward' that "The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are."