The Eurabia Code, Part 4: We Have to Destroy the European Union in Order to Save Europe

The European Union gave the Palestinians $342.8 million in aid in 2005 — or, more accurately, $612.15 million when assistance from the 25 EU governments is included. Even the United States has repeatedly donated millions of American tax dollars to the Palestinian Authority, though not at EU levels. In July 2005, as a response to the Islamic terrorist attacks on London a few days earlier, leaders of the G8, the group of influential industrialized nations, offered the PA some $9 billion, dubbed an “alternative to the hatred.”

The West’s largesse continued despite a demographic study in 2005 which revealed that the number showing the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza had been inflated by 50% by the government.

Almost all of the new infrastructure in the Palestinian territories from the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s — schools, hospitals, airports — were arranged and paid for by Brussels. As Jihad was once again unleashed with the second Intifada in 2000, Israel stopped its transfer of payments to the Palestinians. So the EU stepped in with another 10 million Euros a month in direct budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority. EU Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten stated in 2002 that “there is no case for stating that EU money has financed terrorism, has financed the purchase of weapons, or any similar activities.”

However, a report by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies later found that: “There is indisputable evidence that PA money has been used to fund terrorist activities.” This was confirmed by Fuad Shubaki, who used to serve as the finance chief in the Palestinian security forces. According to him, former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat ordered millions of dollars, taken from international aid funds, tax money transferred by Israel and from Arab countries, to be used to purchase weapons and ammunition, including the 50 tons of armaments on board the ship Karine A. The transaction was coordinated between the PA, Hizballah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Al-Aksa Martyrs BrigadesIn May 2006, Mahmoud Abbas — President of the Palestinian Authority after Arafat’s death in November 2004 and a leading politician in Fatah — talked to the European Parliament about the peace process. At the same time, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, threatened to strike at US and European economic and civilian interests in response to international sanctions on the PA. Financial support evokes no gratitude in the Palestinians. However, they will threaten you with violence if aid is not forthcoming. This is plainly extortion.

This shakedown corresponds to the Muslims’ view of the Jizya, the tributary tax paid by non-Muslims in exchange for not being killed. Documents from the Euro-Arab Dialogue frequently mention about “financial assistance” from the EU to Arab countries. Bat Ye’or points out that some of this Jizya tax is extracted from Europeans without their awareness.

In November 2005, the EU’s official financial watchdog refused to approve the EU’s accounts for the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud and errors. The European Court of Auditors refused to give a statement of assurance on the EU’s $160.3 billion budget for 2004. “The vast majority of the payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity,” it said. It specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU’s foreign policy and aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab countries. Half the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored.

The European Commission is considered the EU’s “government,” and thus the government of nearly half a billion people. But it can release accounts with massive flaws for over a decade straight because it is largely unaccountable to anybody and was intended to be that way.

Muslims use deception to advance Jihad until it is almost too late for the infidels to stop them. The EU federalists and Eurabians have taken a page out of the Islamic playbook, and have been approaching their goals by stealth for decades, buried beneath a mass of detail and technocratic newspeak all but incomprehensible to non-bureaucrats.

In a frank moment, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxemburg’s prime minister, once described the EU’s “system” in this way: “We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens,” he explained. “If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

In The Economist, columnist Charlemagne [Gideon Rachman] wrote: “What Mr Juncker and those who think like him are trying to do is, in essence, to drown opposition to European federation in a mass of technical detail, to bore people into submission. As a strategy, it has gone a long way. [My emphasis] The greatest single transfer of sovereignty from Europe’s nations to the European Union took place, in 1985, as part of the project to create a single European market. Even [British Conservative PM] Margaret Thatcher, not usually slow to spot a trick, later claimed that she had not fully appreciated the ramifications of what she was then signing up to.”

Writer Christopher Booker has called this the EU’s ”culture of deceit”:

“What in fact has been taking place has been a transfer of power […] to Brussels on a scale amounting to the greatest constitutional revolution in our history. But much of this has remained buried from view because our politicians like to preserve the illusion that they are still in charge. The result is that remarkably few people now have any proper understanding of how the political system which rules our lives actually works.”

I have used the term “neo-Feudalism” to describe the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who think that everything that is wrong with Europe is because of “populism” — what others call democracy. The motive force behind the EU aims to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy. This is a throwback to the pre-democratic age. Karl Zinsmeister notes that: “The EU apparatus is exceedingly closed and secretive. Relatively few of the confederation’s important decisions are currently made by democratically accountable officials. On front after front, bureaucratic mandarins are deciding how everyday Europeans will live. […] Many Europeans, in a way Americans find impossible to understand, are willing to let their elites lead them by the nose. There is a kind of peasant mentality under which their ‘betters’ are allowed to make the important national judgments for them.”

MP Gisela Stuart was a member of the Praesidium which drafted the proposed EU Constitution. She sums up her experiences thus:

“The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration, and who see national parliaments and governments as an obstacle [...] Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union.”

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all the British political groups in Brussels called for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws, “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.”

According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion. Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”

The European Union has been compared to the Roman Empire, but such comparisons are not very apt. Rome was the military superpower of its time, while the EU is but a military midget. However, there is one intriguing commonality: Julius Caesar was murdered because he wanted to crown himself king. This was not a popular move among the powerful elite in the Senate, who reminded Caesar that Rome had become a Republic precisely because they had rebelled against the “tyrant” kings of old.

Caesar AugustusCaesar’s successor Octavian, better known today as Caesar Augustus, is considered both the first and one of the most important Roman Emperors. He downplayed his own position by preferring the title princeps, usually translated as “first citizen”. He also preserved the outward form of the Roman Republic, paid lip service to the old elite, and veiled the changes to make them seem less upsetting to the public. He may have been a monarch, but he never called himself one.

Some might see a parallel in the present-day EU. When up to three-quarters of our national laws originate in Brussels, what is then the point of holding national elections? Just as in Octavian’s Rome, the real power has been moved elsewhere, but the old order is draped over reality as a democratic fig leaf in order not to upset the common people. The EU operates largely by stealth; its edicts are implemented through traditional parliaments, which are increasingly reduced to decorative appendages.

The funny aspect of this is that those who are against the EU are labelled xenophobes, nationalists or simply anti-democratic forces. The EU is an organization where unelected bureaucrats dismantle democracy, yet denounce their critics as anti-democratic forces.

In order to create this new entity, the old nation states must be deliberately crushed. Massive numbers of non-European immigrants are introduced, and the resulting situation is termed a “Multicultural society”. This demolition is followed by the demand that our entire society be changed accordingly.

Since Europeans feel less “European” than they experience themselves as French, Italian, Dutch, etc., national allegiances have to be broken down. At the same time, an external rival must be created. The closest model is Bismarck’s unification of Germany. The numerous German states rallied to Prussia’s side against the French in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, thus paving the way for a new, powerful German federation.

The EU federalists strive to build a united European state through a shared animosity against the USA, while constructing a Eurabian entity of Europe and the Arab world via their common hostility towards Israel. One tactic is the deliberate use of the media to whip up anger against these countries and to demonize them.

However, Bismarck’s German states were united by a common language. Even if a “new us” could be constructed from dozens of nations — which is highly questionable — melding various ethnic groups into a cohesive nation takes centuries. Without a shared identity, without a European demos, how can the EU be anything but authoritarian? Perhaps the EU elites believe that a large mass of people lacking a distinct cultural identity would be easier to control?

George OrwellThe problem is that the nation state itself has been declared evil or obsolete, not collectivism, anti-individualism or totalitarianism. But there is a crucial distinction between nationalism and patriotism, which George Orwell saw clearly:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.”

Totalitarian regimes can be national, such as Nazi Germany, but they can also be supranational, such as the Soviet Union, which sought to suppress all pre-existing national loyalties.

How was a project as big as the creation of Eurabia pulled off? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the conclusion that it succeeded precisely because of its size. St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. “How dare you molest the sea?” asked Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world?” the pirate replied. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor.”

It is a matter of scale. If a small group of people sideline the democratic process in one country and start imposing their own laws on the public, it is called a coup d’état. If they do so on an entire continent, it is called the European Union.

Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf described a propaganda technique known as “the Big Lie”. The EU has adopted this strategy, which consists of telling a lie so “colossal” that it would be impossible to believe anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” This has been combined with the technique, perfected by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany, of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.

Here are some Big Lies:

  • Diversity is always good;
  • Multiculturalism is inevitable, as is continued EU integration;
  • Those opposing it are ignorant racists standing against the tide of history;
  • Muslim immigration is “good for the economy” and is necessary for funding the welfare state in the future, despite the fact that it drains away enormous resources.

The creation of Eurabia ranks as one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization. Does that mean that all EU federalists or those who participate in the various instruments of the Euro-Arab Dialogue are evil? No, reality isn’t that simple. As Hugh Fitzgerald points out, “A whole class of people has gotten rich from Arab money and bribes; lawyers, public relations men, and diplomats, journalists, university teachers and assorted officials.”

However, while ignorance, corruption and the self-serving search for personal power explains some of the behavior of the Eurabian elites, it cannot explain the behavior of ALL those thousands of people who have been involved in these networks. Some of them must have convinced themselves that what they were doing was for a just cause, if for no other reason than because human vanity demands that we justify our actions by covering them with a veneer of goodness.

In the science fiction movie Serenity, the two great superpowers, the United States and China, have merged into the Alliance, which has moved humanity to a new star system. On the little-known planet Miranda, a gas called Pax was added to the air processors. It was intended to calm the population, weed out aggression. It worked. The people stopped fighting. They also stopped doing everything else, including breeding and physical self-preservation. A small minority of the population had the opposite reaction to this pacification. Their aggression increased beyond madness, and they killed most of the others. Tens of millions of people quietly let themselves be wiped out.

Movie director Joss Whedon is careful to point out that the Alliance is not some evil empire, but rather a force that is largely benevolent. They meant it for the best, to create a better world, a world without sin. However, according to Whedon, “Whenever you create Utopia, you find something ugly working underneath it.”

Former Europeans who fought against Jihad fought for a number of things: Their religion, their culture and their nation. EU federalists and Eurabians are deliberately suppressing all of these instincts in their quest to create a New Man and weed out aggression. However, because they have wrongly identified the nation state as the root cause of all evil, they are suppressing not just aggressive nationalism, but defensive patriotism. And since some of the Muslims have actually become even more aggressive in response to what they perceive as our nihilism, the Eurabians have suicidally disarmed their own people, literally and metaphorically, and put them up for slaughter.

Many Communists, at least in the beginning, really believed in their ideology. The result was mass slaughter; tens of millions of people were killed in the quest for a world without oppression or exploitation. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless of how good your intentions may be, you cannot use millions of people as guinea pigs in massive social experiments without also causing massive harm.

Perhaps one of the reasons why this has been allowed to happen in Western Europe and the European Union is because we never fully understood or attempted to confront the reasons for the abysmal failure of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union following the Cold War. The concept of massive social experiments to create a New Man was allowed to survive. It mutated and then migrated West. Jean Monnet, who set in motion the process of European integration, reflected on how the European civil service constituted a ‘laboratory’ in which a new kind of ‘European Man’ would be born. But the New European Man, just like the New Soviet Man before him, is all but certain to fail.

Can the European Union be reformed? I doubt it. The EU is bound together by a self-serving class of bureaucrats who want to expand their budgets and their power, despite the harm they do. These functionaries will use traditional methods of deception to counteract any calls for reforms so they can retain control.

It is instructive to watch the reactions of the EU elites to the popular rejections in France and Holland of the EU Constitution in 2005. They put together a “wise” group of European politicians, led by Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister in “super-Eurabian” Romano Prodi’s government, to come up with possible solutions to this impasse. Suggestions discussed included dropping the name “constitution” in favor of “treaty.”

The same Amato, who is a former Italian Prime Minister and also the Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution, has earlier stated that:

“In Europe one needs to act ‘as if’ — as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if states were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty [...] The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge [my emphasis].”

That a man who has openly bragged about how EU federalist goals are advanced by “disguise and subterfuge” leads the attempts to “renew” the EU Constitution tells ordinary Europeans everything we need to know about the EU. If the EU elites have deliberately deceived us for decades to achieve their goals, why should we suddenly trust them now? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. These people have fooled us enough.

“I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized,” says Vladimir Bukovksy. “There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. […] Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.”

In their book about the EU, Richard North and Christopher Booker conclude: “The project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket […] The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe the EU is doomed and will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims the EUrabians have let in. The choice is between a period of painful years in which most of Europe prevails, and death, where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western cultural entity.

Some would hope that we could keep the “positive” aspects of the EU and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ.

The EU is all bath water, no baby. There never was a baby, just a truckload of overpaid babysitters.

Multiculturalism separates people into “tribes” below the nation state level. This is precisely the situation we had in Europe in the Middle Ages. Likewise, the idea that we should “respect” other cultures by not criticizing them means turning the clock back several centuries to the pre-Enlightenment era. Multiculturalism is merely a medieval ideology, and will generate medieval results.

Although the EU will fail in creating a pan-European identity, it has already partly succeeded in weakening the traditional nation states. Across Western Europe, Muslim immigrants tend to settle in major cities, with the native population retreating into the countryside. This destruction of the coherence of society is triggering a return to tribalism, as people no longer trust the nation state to protect them.

The process has been explained by Ernest Baert: “Over many centuries, Western Europe has replaced the tribe or clan by the nation state.” The result was that “European citizens tend to have equal trust in all other citizens of the same nation state outside their immediate family and circle of friends.” This “high-trust society” was a necessary precondition not only for the success of a capitalist economy in Europe, but also for the rise of democracy.

A different worldview prevails in the Muslim world or in Africa. There, individuals have no choice but to fall back on their clan for protection. So what effect will the introduction of massive numbers of individuals from “low-trust societies” have on our own culture? Baert is pessimistic:

“There is little doubt that we live in the dying days of the multicultural fantasy. It will end in misery and may lead to the loss of Europe as a part of Western civilisation. Our children and grandchildren will look back to our days and wonder why so many so easily accepted what patently contradicted history and common sense.”

While ordinary Europeans live in fear of Muslim violence in their own cities and trust in their own leaders is plummeting, EU elites meet in cocktail parties and congratulate each other for bringing peace to Europe.

The European Union promised a Brave New World where wars and ethnic rivalries were a thing of the past. Will it deliver the Middle Ages? Maybe that is what Utopias tend to do.

See also:

The Eurabia Code, Part 1, 1 October 2006

The Eurabia Code, Part 2: A Planned Sell-Out by the EU, 5 October 2006

The Eurabia Code, Part 3: Islamo-Stalinism, 10 October 2006


@Flemish American

This is indeed my argument each time I visit my old country..They (Belgians) don't seem to understand the mess they have created with their "appeasing" approaches...

Mexican & Muslims have one major difference

As much as I can appreciate the Americans' comments about Mexican immigration, there is one major difference between them and a large percentage of the European Muslim population...actually two things; albeit they might be related.

Mexicans enter the U.S. looking to work and support their families.  They contribute to the economy in a valuable way which is why the government is not looking to kick them out as much as find a way to make their presence more legal.

A large part of the Muslim population in Europe hides behind the argument that nobody will hire them, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to arrive and feed off a Socialist system that gives money away for nothing.

The second and first reason I started this post was because Mexicans share Christianity with the Americans they co-exist with and in many ways are more devoted to their faith than most.

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

Could it be so simple!

Im sorry, but after hearing they want
to sing OUR National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough!
Nowhere did they sing it in Italian,
Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, French, or any other language because of immigration.
It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it
was written. The news broadcasts even
 gave the translation - not even close.
Sorry if this offends anyone, but this is
I am not against immigration -
just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor;
have a place to lay your head;
have a job;
pay your taxes;
live by the rules;
as all other immigrants have in the past


Think about this:
If you don't want to repeat this
for fear of offending someone,

Will we still be the Country of choice
and still be America if we continue
to make the changes forced on us by
people from other countries who came
 to live in America because it is the
Country of Choice? 

Think about it! 

All we have to say is, when will
Someone do something about
We've gone so far the other way,
bent over backwards to not
offend anyone, that I am now
 being offended.
But it seems no one has a problem
with that.
It is Time for America to Speak up
If you agree - repeat it to some else!

In spite of my 1000 years

In spite of my 1000 years old family roots in many countries all over Europe, i have recently moved -actually emigrated- to China. 
Sometimes, when i am in doubht whether i have taken the right decision, i just have to read the news in Europe or articles like this.    

Here i can enjoy freedom, life to its full extend.  I can enjoy Mozart's Idomeneo without any restrictions.  Here they build new Christian churches at a steady pace. 

Due to islam and socialism, political and moral values are rapidly declining in old Europe.  While here strongminded self-discipline, respect, care for family and vision on future are on the rise.
My dear old precious Europe has became a graveyard of moral values.  With no prospect on improvement. 

To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.
Stir as little as possible.
- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC

It is frustrating - Part III

As Thomas Payne once said, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

As Thomas Mann once said, "Tolerance of evil is a crime."

Just my thoughts for a Saturday afternoon. Now lets make some noise for the noise we make now might remedy the threatening situation before we have to take action against the virulent form of tyranny called Islam. It is true that "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".

We will one day get to the point where such evils of Islam will no longer be sufferable...

It is frustrating - Part II

As with any tyranny, whether by government or outside force, it is our right AND DUTY in securing our unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, to depose and/or eradicate anything which is destructive to those ends.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Governments do not rule the people, but people rule the government and anything that threatens a man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether it be a despotic government or a despotic faith like Islam, it is our duty to rid ourselves of such tyranny.

VERY IMPORTANT: Our RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT come from government, but from our CREATOR. These rights are inalienable!!!!

When you remove God from the picture, then evil men can say such rights come from men and therefore they can be changed or abrogated. For example, limiting free speech and/or free press under the guise of "hate speech".

Thank God Christianity still has a hold, albeit weak, on the United States.

It is frustrating - Part I

It is frustrating and I agree we need to make a noise.

We have yet gotten to the point in the U.S. to where we need to take action. Action not against our government, per se, but against Islam that is attempting to destroy our nation and way of life as it is doing in Europe.

I am reminded of the following excerpt taken from the United States Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Europe has/is becoming evermore self-destructive with its dhimmi attitude and tolerance of Islam. One should re-read again the wise words excerpted from the Declaration of Independence regarding right and duty to throw off such governments as defined in the excepted portion of the Declaration of Independence.

Please keep writing

Thank you Fjordman for yet another insightful article. I had a few comments to part 3, but the comments were closed already when I decided to post. I liked the fact that you wrote about the influence of media. Being of Polish origin and remembering communism from my childhood I can also relate to other Polish people in Norway finding resemblance between the communist thought control and the enforced political correctness of the west. Milos was only partially right about Poles of those years submitting to the communist ideology as a way to survive. Many of us didn’t, but rather quietly looked for a way out not just to survive, but to live. My family found a way out – to Norway. I think the communist experience left us (Poles and other survives of the regime) more wary of limitations of freedom of speech.

The charges made by Bat

The charges made by Bat Ye’or are correct: the leadership of Europe has conspired for decades to surrender Europe to the authority of a global Muslim empire (that has as its primary goal the destruction of Israel). This is criminal behavior on a massive scale; a treachery as evil as leaving the borders of a nation one has sworn to defend unprotected! It is clear that the most powerful leaders of Europe should all be removed from office and, along with their predecessors and likely successors, placed on trail for treason.

You see, the multiracial society has become unruly, even revolutionary at times and White Europeans are correctly blaming the political leaders and the media for forcing millions of non-Western immigrants upon them – who are now becoming a threat to their lives. They do not want Muslims from Africa, and all over the third world, repopulating Europe. They blame the political leaders who have demanded that they politely accept these hordes of hostile peoples as their fellow citizens, that they pay astronomical taxes to support the enormous families of this unending flood of new arrivals.

What are the European opinion makers going to say when their protected class of color - imported against the will of "racist" locals - is proving not merely a burden on society, but an imminent danger to the public safety? What are these traitors going to say when all hell is breaking loose?

The Eurabia Code

Once again some has written something that makes me stop, to think about what is and what will be. Can we just sit and ponder what is happening, with no emotional out cry, no feelings, surely some level of fear has been aroused in us. This impending change is evolving now and will invade everything we know, who we are, what we stand for and cause us to change and become something we are not, surely not a way of life we do not want to be part of. Each of us must start to now, do not let them lead us quietly into the night. Some how make a noise, talk about what you feel is wrong, ask others how they feel, and what effects this change is bringing upon them and their family. Start meeting with others on a regular time schedule, Question everything that does not seem right, go to any and all assemblies that involve you, you family, your friends, be against any changes you do not agree with. Make some noise!

Great Article

I am an American with English and German heritage. Maybe that is why my dual personalities are always waging war against each other!!! LOL

Seriously, thank God I don't live under the system of the EU.

America is not perfect and it is under attack by forces like Islam and invasions from Mexico with illegal aliens, but still it hasn't gone down the road as far as Europe has to destruction.

I am afraid that one day America and Israel will one day stand alone against the world. Well let me add Austraila for they are not fooled by the lies of Islam. They won't submit.

Another fear is attempts by our government to create a "North America Union" with Mexico and Canada. I will fight that until my death for I believe in Nationalism and I believe in the sovereignty of the state which should never be surrendered. Thank God President Bush did not sign into the International Criminal Court.

Hopefully, America and other nations will not fall into the lie of trying to create a one world government and thank God we are not a part of something like the E.U.