The Council of Europe Fights "Islamophobia"

I recently wrote an essay regarding how the Council of Europe, in close cooperation with the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League and other Islamic organizations, are working to combat "Islamophobia" in Europe by all means necessary. Now the French blog Galliawatch takes a look at the CoE as well. This should be considered required reading for all those numerous people who still stubbornly dismiss Eurabia as a "conspiracy theory." The CoE and the EU are implementing policies aimed to rewrite school textbooks throughout the European continent in order to provide a positive and non-threatening view of Islam. They are thus indoctrinating our children to accept Islam.

They are doing this behind our backs, without consulting us, and they can do so because the EU is constructed as a top-down organization where all crucial decisions are taken behind closed doors and imposed on the general public by an unelected oligarchy, who may or may not be bought and paid for by our enemies. Yes, this is a massive betrayal, but we should remember that it is a betrayal that they can commit because we gave them the tools to do so, or at least didn't object strongly enough when they took these tools, maybe because we didn't understand the full significance of them. The only way to stop this and prevent similar betrayals from occurring in the future is to take away these tools from the hostile Eurabian oligarchy, which requires dissolving both the EU and the CoE.

Resolution 1605 of the Council of Europe

Council of Europe member states should continue to be vigilant in their work to prevent and combat the phenomenon of Islamophobia.

9. In light of the above, the Assembly calls on the member states of the Council of Europe to:

9.1. act strongly against discrimination in all areas;

9.2. condemn and combat Islamophobia;

9.7.6. encouraging the participation of people with an immigrant background in political parties, trade unions and non-governmental organisations;

9.7.7. taking all the necessary measures to eliminate the inequality of opportunity faced by immigrants, including unemployment and inadequate education;

9.7.8. removing unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles to the construction of a sufficient number of appropriate places of worship for the practice of Islam;

9.7.9. ensuring that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion;

11.6. encourage young European Muslims to become imams;

11.8. encourage the promotion of fair coverage of Muslim reality and views in the media and ensure that the voice of moderate Muslims is also reported;

11.9. develop ethical guidelines to combat Islamophobia in the media and in favour of cultural tolerance and understanding, in co-operation with appropriate media organisations;

As much as I normally admire

As much as I normally admire your articles, I am shocked that you apparently support the criminalization of non-PC thoughts.
Where I live the internet censors do not block blogs critical of the Islamification of Europe nor do the police arrest people for writing unpopular essays about historical events.
bikes for sale

In short, like

In short, like every civilised westerner, raised on judeo-christian
values, I will judge all people on the basis of the moral quality of
their behavior, and NOT on the basis of anything else.  Armor, by
contrast is no different from most muslims in muslim cultures, i.e. he
judges people on the basis of who they are (or where they fit on his
scale of prejudices) and not on the basis of how they behave.

online movies 

@ marcfrans

Perhaps I should have asked Armor how he would react if it was confirmed that he is distantly related to Sammy Davis Jr.

@ kappert

re: nitwits


"Hear the words from our on-line-psychiatrist".


Some might say you could benefit greatly from an immediate consultation. Personally, God forgive me, I'd recommend euthanasia.

simply nitwits # 2

@ Atlanticist

I suspect that your multiple-choice question is too complicated for Armor.  So, I will make an informed guess (informed by numerous observations of his expressed hatred) on his behalf.

The hardest for him to take would be (a).  That would positively create an identity crisis that might necessitate medical/psychiatric intervention.  I think he could 'live' with the possibility of (b), but he would never talk about it.  It would be 'tucked away' in the deepest recesses of his mind.   Finally, I doubt that Armor would care at all about being related to Kappert (given Armor's deep resentment of the French state).

P.S.  I think that K.O. gave a long and well-reasoned response to Armor's ridiculous dhimmitude-to-jews thesis.  But, frankly, I have made most of the same points already long ago in earlier 'tangos' with Armor.  So, they will run over him, like water over a cold stone.  When it comes to 'closed minds', there is no measurable difference between Kappert and Armor. They are both made from the same 'mental cloth', i.e. oblivious to empirical observation, but are in the service of very different (and opposing) ideologies.

@Marcfrans - re: simply nitwits #2

Marcfrans wrote: "there is no measurable difference between Kappert and Armor. They are both made from the same 'mental cloth', i.e. oblivious to empirical observation"

"oblivious to empirical observation" is a good description of your problem. You say that third-world immigrants could assimilate to European culture in theory. It does not bother you that in the real world, third-world immigrants cause all kinds of problems and do NOT assimilate to European culture.


Hear the words from our on-line-psychiatrist.

To anti-semitic idiots:

Just shut up.  The media is NOT controlled by Jews and anyone who actually believes that is incredibly stupid.  Yes, a lot of Jews are a bit left in their politics, and I disagree with leftism.  But to say that we are "dhimmis to the Jews" is beyond stupid.  It's ridiculous.  Jews have always been the scapegoats, and apparently some here are trying to make the whole problem with we've got with Islam the Jews' fault.  Some things never change.

Dhimmis to the Jews

Sorry for repeating myself in this comment, but I think the phrase "Dhimmis to the Jews" is entirely justified.

Dhimmitude is a new word mostly used by internet Jewish "counter-jihadists" who support the racial replacement of Europeans with muslims, blame Europeans for being both anti-Jewish and anti-muslim, and blame muslim immigrants for being muslim.

It is a fact that we are submitted by the Jewish dominated media to a barrage of anti-European propaganda supporting our racial disappearance. Muslims have no responsibility at all in this barrage of propaganda. Muslim immigration is not organized by Muslims. So, it is dishonest to say that European dhimmitude to the muslims is a problem. This problem doesn't exist. Our immigration problem comes from the European extreme left, with a lot of Jewish help. We do have a problem of dhimmitude to the Jews, since we are afraid to denounce their influence, and are not allowed to do so in the Jewish-dominated media anyway. It isn't that we like to submit to the Jews, but the institutions and media that we need in order to denounce their anti-European influence are precisely under Jewish influence. Otherwise, it is likely that immigration would have been stopped and the muslims kicked out of Europe a long time ago.

The Jewish "counter-jihadists" are good at creating internet websites where Europeans are invited to come and insult their fellow Europeans who "behave like dhimmis" and are responsible for the destruction of western civilization. On that kind of site, Europeans who speak against immigration will usually be accused of racism and "antisemitism". The Jews have a great sense of humor. They will even create supposedly anti-neocon websites were non-Jews are invited to take part and denounce "antisemitism".

PS: I read some place that 'dhimmi' was the name given by Arab invaders to groups of people who would not convert to the pseudo religion of islam.

@ Armor

How would you react if it was confirmed that:


a) You have some Jewish ancestry.


b) You have some Negro ancestry.


c) You are distantly related to kappert.

And which would you find the most hard to take?

simply nitwits

1) How does intimidation work in the muslim world?  Does it require many people to be murdered in order to make them toe the line?  No, it does not.  It requires (a) only some to be murdered (examples), and (b) for no significant cultural, political and other societal forces 'to stand up and be counted'.  Islamic intimidation works no different in Europe.  It suffices to murder a few, to impose a real cost on export businesses to the mislim world, et voila...editors refuse to publish, politicians employ selectively 'antiracism' and/or anti-insult legislation, and freedom of speech has become a 'selective' right.  So, the observation "How many Europeans have been murdered?...Two or three?" is moronic.

2) How can blaming muslims for ACTIONS be called "scapegoating"?   And if one wants to see the depth of current moral-relativism in contemporary European 'culture', all one has to do is to read Armor, who literally wrote: "I don't think you should blame muslims who behave like muslims".  Apart from the implied assertion that "behaving like muslims" is necessarily bad or uncivilised, my reponse is very simple.  I will blame ANYBODY who behaves badly, and I will praise ANYBODY who behaves in a good manner.  In short, like every civilised westerner, raised on judeo-christian values, I will judge all people on the basis of the moral quality of their behavior, and NOT on the basis of anything else.  Armor, by contrast is no different from most muslims in muslim cultures, i.e. he judges people on the basis of who they are (or where they fit on his scale of prejudices) and not on the basis of how they behave.

3) I do blame the media, and even more so the current educational establishment in the West, because the media personel is raised by the education system.   I do NOT agree with any policy "to replace Europeans with third-world immigrants".   But, no matter, how often I may state this publicly, it will make no difference to dishonest nitwits who cannot read, and who do not hesitate to repeat manifest lies.  

anti-islamophobia laws

in reply to Marcfrans
"politicians employ selectively 'antiracism' and/or anti-insult legislation, and freedom of speech has become a 'selective' right."

You are right. The anti-islamophobia laws described by Fjordman and the censorship by Jewish dominated media are much more efficient than the murder of Theo van Gogh at silencing criticism of islam and of third-world immigration. I don't think Muslims take any part in passing those laws.

dhimmis AND nitwits


Those European racists and antisemites who think that they are dhimmis to the jews, rather than to the muslims, ought to get their heads examined. 

Nobody is being murdered for criticizing or caricaturizing judaism in Europe.  As to criticizing and/or cartoonizing islam....well, use your eyes and brains!   

And the notion that the BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 1,2...and other public media in Europe are "jewish-dominated" does not pass the laugh-test among serious observers.  Scapegoating anyone will not save you from your real troubles.  Only honesty and wisdom could do that.  But these are obviously in scarce supply.


@ Atlanticist

I chose the term "nitwit", in honor of the inimitable 'Manuel'.  I could equally have gone for 'blockhead, numskull, dolt, duffer, etc...', but blinded-by-hatred would probably be the clearest expression. 

Dhimmitude not the fault of Jews

I wish classical liberals and traditionalists could make some headway with that subset of nationalists and patriots who have been infected by the antisemitic bug. As for leftists who have it (Hitler's true descendants), that is another problem.

As far as I know, Jews like Gentiles divide between liberal and conservative on a host of issues. The left-liberalism that makes Europeans prone to dhimmitude and feeds their animus against the West, thus making them friendly to anti-Western invaders such as Moslems, affects both Jews and Gentiles. There is no reason to attribute widespread left-liberalism to Jewish media or Jewish influence or Zionism when it affects all parts of the Western world in varying degrees, regardless of whether or not Jews are present in large numbers. Left-liberalism is threatening to destroy Israel even faster than the rest of the West and hand it over to Hamas/Hezbollah domination. Is that the result of Jewish media influence?

Feebleness and denial in the face of the Islamic threat result from both moral and intellectual failings. Left-liberals and naive right-liberals--who see everyone in the world as interchangeable economic units--refuse to confront the challenge facing their nations, and refuse to acknowledge that the challenge exists or even that their nations have a legitimate interest in persisting.

Left-liberal Jews are left-liberals first and Jews second. That is the nature of left-liberalism, to dissolve religious and racial identity. Left-liberal Jews exploit the feelings of solidarity of non-left-liberal Jews and recruit them for leftist activism (MCPC, if you like acronyms) that is against their interests as Jews and as citizens of Western nations. Thus you have non-leftists suckered into leftist causes on the basis of values the leftists themselves do not respect--the old front group ploy is alive and well.

Islamic colonization is a terrible threat to Europe and a growing threat in the U.S.A. The abettors will be found in all levels of government, the left-liberal media and academia, the left-liberal section of the population, and the naive right-liberals who fondly hope that new immigrants will be seduced by money and Western consumer culture. In the panorama of danger, Jews occupy only a small role and are divided, like other groups, along many lines. Look for the politicians and officials that are abetting Islamic colonization of the West and turn them out of office. That is where the people's anger should be directed.


Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that left-liberalism, not Islamic colonization, is the terrible threat (especially in its putatively benign, managerial phase as represented by the EU) and that Islamic colonization is only one of the most noxious consequences of leftist ascendancy. Left-liberalism weakens its host so that it is susceptible to death by a variety of causes, cultural disintegration, demographic collapse, loss of trust, criminality, destruction of social capital, institutional failure, and foreign domination. A slow-motion Bolshevik revolution, in which ultimately all social relations will be mediated by government.

No longer dhimmis to the Jews

in reply to Mr KO:

"Jews like Gentiles divide between liberal and conservative on a host of issues."

I think Jews overwhelmingly vote for the pro-immigration "left", exactly like Arab immigrants.

"The left-liberalism that makes Europeans prone to dhimmitude"

I wonder what you mean by that. I suggest you stop using the word dhimmitude. I think what people mean by "dhimmitude" is a willingness to buckle under muslim pressure. But there is no real muslim pressure. The reason we build so many mosques for the muslims is simply loony left ideology.
I'd like to know how the leftists suddenly became supporters of immigration. Until recently, they used to denounce capitalist exploitation of the workers. Then, they suddenly turned against the workers and became supporters of racial replacement. Where did the change come from?

"anti-Western invaders such as Moslems"

I don't see Muslim immigrants as anti-western invaders. At least, they have no big plan to destroy the West. But it is clear that the Jewish dominated media seeks to destroy us.

"There is no reason to attribute widespread left-liberalism to Jewish media"

Yes there is. I prefer the label anti-European leftism.

"Left-liberal Jews are left-liberals first and Jews second."

I disagree. What I have noticed is that our largely Jewish media practice Jewish ethnocentrism while denouncing any trace of ethnic awareness in Europeans.

"the naive right-liberals who fondly hope that new immigrants will be seduced by money and Western consumer culture"

This is another topic, but it is a fact that third-world immigrants are more materialistic than Europeans. They see white society as a commodity, an opportunity to have sex, welfare payments, nike shoes, etc.

What annoys me about talks of "dhimmitude" and "islamo-facism" and "counter-jihad" is that it mainly comes from arrogant Jewish websites that support the destruction of the west by mass immigration. I think islam in Europe is an imaginary threat. I don't think muslims will stick to their religion if they stay in Europe. I don't think most young Arabs now living in france care about islam. Claiming that we should be afraid they will impose their pseudo-religion on the rest of us is senseless talk. It will never happen. From my point of view, it is a good thing that most third-world immigrants are muslim, as it constitutes an obstacle to their cultural assimilation. By the way, many immigrants who don't care about the existence of God are interested in islam as a way to maintain their separate identity.

To Mr. Armor re dhiimmitude

Here in the U.S., Jews are about 70% Democrats, 30% Republicans. Democrats are pretty much an open-borders party; Republicans may have an immigration-restrictionist majority. American Jews thus vote on the pro-immigration left. Commentary, a centrist magazine with a strong Jewish emphasis, is fanatically open borders.

I agree that Moslem pressure scarcely exists apart from leftist pressure, but it does exist. Isn't HALDE the vehicle of Moslem pressure in France? It is legitimate to speak of dhimmitude in connection with any buckling to Moslem pressure. To buckle to petty pressure is all the more pitiable. You seem to forget the ancient enmity between Christendom and Islam, which have been at war for 1400 years.

I suspect the left turned against workers when workers were no longer so desperate that they wanted to bring down the whole hated social structure. The hard-core left is mostly interested in destroying. The Moslems serve that purpose, unlike relatively well-off workers. Here, the most radical national union, SEIU, is totally open borders even though Mexicans brings down the price of labor. The leftist union officials don't care about that. They only want votes for socialism, heightening their political influence. Like European socialists uniting with Moslems. Incidentally, the environmentalists here turn out to be pure open borders leftists too, even though runaway immigration is the dominant factor in population growth, urban sprawl, pressure on natural resources, and proliferation of highways and driving. Just like the union officials, they don't care. They just want to import more votes for socialism. In fact, they welcome misery, because that makes people desperate, and when they are dsperate they join the leftists in their destructive rage.

I just don't see how you can call the Western media Jewish-dominated. In France the media are run by the socialist bureaucracy, n'est-ce pas? And how many Jews have their hands on the controls in Germany? And what about the destruction of Israel by the same liberalism that you say is Jewish-dominated? The media and the people they serve are largely left-liberal in culture. Jews are part of that, but if they were not, I don't think the leftism in the West would be very different. After all, two of the most successful leftists in history, maybe more than two, were virulent anti-semites, Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler!

I don't see how you can dismiss the threat of Islam in Europe when Moslems are rioting, growing in numbers, building mosques, demanding accommodation in a variety of ways, murdering and threatening their critics, and raping infidel girls.

Your perspective preferring that they not assimilate is interesting. Non-assimilation would only seem to be desirable, however, if you planned to deport them in the near future. I don't see that happening. Also, if they don't assimilate and don't go home, they will wield political power in a fashion hostile to the natives, a totally undesirable outcome.

in reply to Mr KO (1)

"I agree that Moslem pressure scarcely exists apart from leftist pressure, but it does exist. Isn't HALDE the vehicle of Moslem pressure in France?"

Wiki says HALDE was created in 2004 to enforce EU recommendations to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. It is an organization created by Europeans in order to destroy Europeans. What the HALDE does is that it will approach muslims and animists and coax them into lodging complaints against Europeans for racial discrimination.

"I just don't see how you can call the Western media Jewish-dominated."

Just google "Who runs the media". It is the same in france.
Google this: "les médiats importants sont entièrement entre les mains des Juifs".

"In France the media are run by the socialist bureaucracy, n'est-ce pas?"

Don't you think Jewish influence is particularly strong in the socialist bureaucracy? In the last presidential election, the contenders to be the socialist nominee were Ségolène Royal, Jack Lang, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and Laurent Fabius. Sarkozy was elected thanks to an anti-immigration platform. Only after his election did the voters realize that he was Jewish (not everyone knows yet) and in favor of more immigration. His first move after being elected was to give himself a 40% percent pay raise over what Chirac used to perceive. Then, in order to rise above the artificial distinction between left and right, he invited a few members of the left to participate in his government: Jacques Attali (a former friend of Mitterrand), Bernard Kouchner (member of the socialist party), both of them Jewish, and he put Strauss-Kahn in charge of the International Monetary Fund. He asked Attali to write a report detailing what reforms need to be done in france. Attali came up with a recommendation to "relaunch" immigration.

"And how many Jews have their hands on the controls in Germany?"

I don't know. I agree with you that it is unlikely that Jews have much influence on every crazy immigrationist European government. Do Norway and Sweden have many Jews? It looks like some European countries are looking to the USA, Britain and france as models.

"The media and the people they serve are largely left-liberal in culture. Jews are part of that, but if they were not, I don't think the leftism in the West would be very different. After all, two of the most successful leftists in history, maybe more than two, were virulent anti-semites, Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler!"

I don't think it makes much sense to say that Hitler was leftist of rightist. It is only a game. Leftists agitators will compare every immigration restrictionist to Hitler, so we have to defend ourselves and observe that Hitler had much in common with today's leftists. But is is not an entirely serious discussion!

Even if Jews did not exist, media concentration and consolidation would be a serious problem for the West. Who could argue that it has no consequence at all? Now, is it no longer a problem if it happens under Jewish control? It is very surprising that the Jews are able to gain so much influence over the political, financial, and media system, but it is an observable fact. The consequences are obvious in the media. How come the western media are so interested in Israel and Palestine, and "the" holocaust? How come the USA decided to impose "democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan? After reading Pat Buchanan, David Duke and others, I have come to the conclusion that this is probably due to Jewish influence in the US government. This is a crazy policy that ignores American interests.

in reply to Mr KO (2)

"I don't see how you can dismiss (...) murdering and threatening their critics, and raping infidel girls"

According to french TV, muslim immigrants also rape fidel girls. I no longer watch TV, but a few years back, I saw a few news reports about collective rapes in france's immigrant suburbs. The journalists explained that it was terrible for the victims because they were rejected by their own families after being attacked by the rapists. What the journalists implied was that the victims were muslim. Later, I realized that most victims were probably targeted because they were European. But I think it is caused by racial animus and has little to do with islam.

"Your perspective preferring that they not assimilate is interesting. Non-assimilation would only seem to be desirable, however, if you planned to deport them in the near future. I don't see that happening."

I certainly see deportation happening in the future. And I see "assimilation" as a policy aimed at preventing whites from surviving even in isolated enclaves.

"Also, if they don't assimilate and don't go home, they will wield political power in a fashion hostile to the natives, a totally undesirable outcome."

So, you recommend suicide as a solution!

Here is a good example of france's official assimilation policy: Azouz Begag was Chirac's minister for equal opportunities between 2005 an 2007. His philosophy goes like this (my own translation) :
"It is necessary to cross the Paris beltway, to go over there where the natives live, the descendants of Vercingetorix. Doors must be busted, and if they won't open, a forceps should be used. Wherever diversity is missing, it must be like a locust invasion, in entrance examinations to become civil servants, in national police. Everywhere, so there will be no going back." (source)

Dhimmis to the Jews

Marcfrans wrote: "Nobody is being murdered for criticizing or caricaturizing judaism in Europe."

Even so, our freedom of speech is restricted by Jewish ideology much more than by islam. Saying so will cause a journalist to lose his job. It is much easier to criticize "islamo-fascism".
How many Europeans have been murdered in the last 10 years for criticizing islam? Two or three? It is nothing, compared to the genocide of Europeans made possible by the Jewish dominated media.

In 1948 the United Nations defined genocide -- in part -- as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, … deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” (source)

"Scapegoating anyone will not save you from your real troubles."

Somehow, you think that scapegoating islam is all right. I don't think you should blame muslims who behave like muslims. If you don't like islam, you should blame the media who make muslim immigration possible. (You should also blame yourself, since you obviously agree with the policy of replacing Europeans with third-world immigrants).

Maybe there's hope...

onecent, I do have hope for Europe.  Hopefully something nasty done by Muslims in the future (i.e. a terrorist attack) will somehow wake up Europe to the threat--and America too.  America really isn't much better than Europe with regards to Islam.  We're heading the way Europe is, thanks to the leftists here.  


The best thing that can be done is to educate people about Islam.  That's really the root of the whole problem: people don't understand how violent Islam is, so they either believe it's "peaceful" or just don't really think about it at all.  A proper education on Islam would benefit all Westerners.  Reading sites like this one (and especially Jihad Watch) is a start, as is reading a decent translation of the Koran. I have hope that maybe, one day, the majority of people in the West, instead of the minority, will understand that Islam is the greatest threat that Western civilisation has ever faced.

Oh, I almost forgot: Islam is definitely MUCH more than a religion. It is like a perverse political movement--that's part of what makes it so terrible. It's not like other religions--they can be a part of your life. For Muslims, Islam IS your life. There is nothing else.

The left is a bigger problem right now

Natalie - the problem is that you can't break the left's wall of silence in order to educate people about Islam. They own the media. Right now the left through their politicans and almost complete media control are the bigger problem. How can you defeat an enemy that one isn't even allowed to name properly let alone discuss in the public square?

Europeans are being legally prosecuted for their opinions, we are no where close to that. I don't think the Europeans will ever unshackle themselves from socialism and all of the pc and multicultural rot that it has brought. Free speech isn't as solidly codified and valued as here. Europeans aren't known as risk takers either. They seem content with a few exceptions to see their basic freedoms slowly dissipated by Brussels. They trust and rely on the government, most Americans don't.

Very true, onecent

onecent, that is very true. There definitely is a wall of silence, as you say, imposed by the left. Education of the people is the key to defeating Islam--once people realise what Islam truly is like, I'm sure a vast majority isn't going to be too pleased. But how can we educate people if we can't get through to them? It's quite a conundrum.

About those Europeans, yes, we do have freedom of speech here--or so we say. Though I don't see people being prosecuted for their opinions in America, I definitely don't see the amount of discourse about Islam that I'd like to see. And that's not good.

Negotiating peace with Islam

Perhaps the Moslem problem can be solved by negotiation. A good outcome would be this: all Moslems in Western lands, i.e., North and South America, Continental and Insular Europe, and the Occupied Territories (i.e., North Africa, Asia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and the Middle East (comprising Syria, Palestine, Arabia Petraea, and Mesopotamia) will either renounce Islam, or remove to Saudi Arabia. Those in Saudi Arabia may practice Islam. In sum, the Great War of Islam against the West can be ended by returning to the status quo ante. We would be sorry to leave the Arabs themselves under Islamic domination--in other words, not rolling back the catastrophic Islamic conquest to the beginning--, but this is probably the best deal we should seek at this time.

If central and east Asians wish to roll back the Moslem conquests of their lands, they should enter into separate treaties of a similar nature.

This is not an Islamophobic proposal, if Islamaphobia is defined as an unreasoning fear of Islam. It is based on a reasoned appreciation of the injustice and destructiveness of the Islamic conquest of a huge part of the West, and of the misery inflcted by Islam on all who come under its domination, Moslems included. It is also based on a reasoned appreciation of the threat Islam poses to Western nations, their cultures, their peoples, and their liberties, and to every individual in Western lands, each of whom is targeted by Islam for extermination, domination, or conversion.

But can we negotiate with such people?

KO, though your idea is a good one, I really don't think it would work. Islam teaches its followers not to rest until they die or dominate the whole world. These people want us dead or converted to Islam (a fate worse than death, if you ask me). I don't really think we can negotiate with such people. Sure, we could try, but I do not think they'd uphold their end of the bargain. They would continue to try to spread Islam.

One another note, I looked at your profile page... are you a lawyer? I'm assuming so, considering the website you have...

We are already negotiating with them

Thanks for your reply, Natalie. My point is that we are already negotiating with them, giving them whatever they want in response to demands that are supported by nothing but our leaders' arrogance and sloth. I suggest we change the starting line for negotiations, so that instead of the integration of Islam being the general ground of discussion, we start from its total elimination, which is highly desirable from almost every point of view. The compromise position then becomes its sequestration, ideally to its original home, the Arabian peninsula. Most of the Middle East and North Africa were stolen from the Christian West (i.e., the Christian Roman Empire) by sheer brute force. It need not be assumed that the catastrophe of the conquest is either legitimate or permanent.

If Western peoples assert their desire to be rid of Islam, and require their leaders to make no concessions to it whatsoever, a new round of negotiations can begin that may result in Moslems who formally renounce Islam being permitted to remain, conditionally, in Western countries. However, something would have to be given in return for such a concession, and I am not aware of anything Moslems have to offer the West besides the opportunity to convert them.

@KO and Natali

KO and Natali, face it, it's all over for parts of Europe - France, the Brits, Netherlands, Sweden - they are on the Dhimmi Express as they deserve to be. The EU wants their Muslims in big numbers, to socialists they are warm bodies that vote for them. They deserve to be dhimmis. The counties that I mention have never voiced in any manner a rejection of that reality on a gress roots level. They may whine a little, but, acting in an organized forceful manner is beyond them. Civil disobedience is beyond them. So, as socialist sheeple you get what the elites give you.

Fortunately in the US, thanks to 9/11 and our clearly understanding the message, we aren't importing the much of the Muslim pathology. 75% of Arabs in America are Christians, that's not clearly appreciated here and abroad. As moribund and stupid as our State Dept. is they got nailed fast and early for any attempt to bring Muslims in here indiscriminately. Granted we have problems with Mexican illegals, but, our inept Democrat politicians have heard from us loudly and clearly that we will accept no amnesty and get the damn wall up. There is no equivalence in Europe from the public.

dhimmis to the Jews

1c wrote: " they are on the Dhimmi Express as they deserve to be. The EU wants their Muslims in big numbers "

If we must be called dhimmis, it would make more sense to say that we are dhimmis to the Jews, rather than to the Muslims. The Jewish media are largely responsible for the debasement of Western civilization and for the growing muslim population in Europe. If it was not for those media, we would stop immigration and probably send the muslims back home. For the political career of a European politician, it is far more dangerous to denounce Jewish influence than muslim immigration. Our European national cultures are clearly under attack from the Jewish dominated media, but the muslims are in no position to damage our cultural life. They have zero influence. In short, I think it is absurd to say that we are dhimmis to the muslims.

Having muslims in Europe is bad for 3 main reasons :
1. we are being replaced
2. we get a lot of crime
3. islam is a source of trouble

But #3 doesn't matter when compared to #1.

Moslems in the U.S.A.

I am always glad to hear from onecent how well we are doing n the U.S.A., but I would like to hear more about what our State Department has done to exclude Moslems. Some American communities have been taken over by Moslems, and are violated several times a day by the raucous call of the muezzin. Others play host to large Somali populations, which are beginning to generate Somali gangs. Why anyone would view Somalis as desirable immigrants is beyond me--it must be the self-destructive rage of liberal guilt. Much more popular resistance is needed in the U.S.A., and soon. I agree the plight of Europe is as sad as onecent says, but our Republican White House has pandered to CAIR and both parties will pander to Moslems even before their votes are meaningful--witness the way the parties and the press exaggerate the significance of the Mexican vote to justify their pandering. (It must be admitted that every vote counts in a close election, which makes immigration policy all the more critical. If you don't want people governing you--even by virtue of being included in a coalition as a result of their minuscule contribution of votes--don't let them in.)

The height of stupidity

onecent, it actually would be easier than you would think.  The left has a knack for presenting Islam as a "peaceful religion" and when they are violent, it's always "justified."  Obviously that's rubbish, but people are going to believe that if they are indoctrinated with such lies. I was never taught anything useful about Islam in school--I had to find out myself by reading blogs like this one.

The left is an active collaborator.  The sad and ironic thing is they don't seem to realise that if Islam takes over, they're next--they will not have the freedom to say what they want.  We, both the left and the right, will be in the same boat: convert to Islam, or die.


This is in regards to the statement that the Left seems insane (well, MORE insane) for de-facto supporting Islam when the precepts of the Koran are diametrically opposed to the Liberal concepts of tolerance, feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, sexual liberation, separation of Church and State, etc, etc, etc...

The left has no problem collaborating with Muslims at the moment, and they will have no problem converting to Islam if/when their lives are threatened.

Oddly enough, the left is actually consistent in this regard. You have to realize that the left doesn't really believe in anything-- except gaining power. Though most won't admit this (some not even to themselves), leftists simply hate western civilization, liberty, Judeo-Christian morality and any notion of absolutes(read: God himself). Their political positions are a balancing act of subverting or corrupting the things they hate, and propelling themselves to greater power (so that they can more effectively subvert or corrupt).

For many leftists, their Muslim conversion will happen long before there is any threat on their lives. Within the decade, we can expect to see many new high-profile converts to Islam from the left, especially in the political class. The militant homosexuals, feminists and atheists will be placated with some double-speak for a bit, but in time, they will be thrown under the bus as Islam becomes the most effective political weapon for gaining power and destroying the west.

The philosophy of the left contains no fixed principles or ideologies (moral absolutes are an anathema to them). Fundamentally, leftism is a despotic nihilism that seeks to rule a world of slaves, rubble, and corpses (ie. Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union). Their goals align with Islam insofar as it is a totalitarian theocracy that also seeks to rule a world of slaves, rubble, and corpses.

Natalie, you are so right.

Natalie, you are so right. What's most pathetic aren't the obvious Islamofascists, but, the socialist Euroweenies that sit on the sidelines either encouraging the new fascism, as Islam is a political entity as well as a perverse religion, or have nailed their mouths shut.

Almost 2000 views of this posting and you are the first one to weigh in. So either those viewing the comments are sympathetic to the Islamists, indifferent or have their mouths nailed shut by their own hands.

Europe won't survive this new fascist onslaught. Why would they?

The left and the passive sheeple that support them unconditionally deserve the fate that will befall them. But, historically that's been Europe's story.

Good luck trying to deny reality.

ensuring that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.

How are you going to expunge from the history books all of Islam's evil deeds, 9/11, Beslan, Bali, the Moscow theater, the London and Madrid train bombings, Darfur and every corner of the globe where someone's rights are being denied or physical harm is being visited upon them in the name of Allah?

It's going to be a monumental task for the lefty thought police to sanitize the Death Cult. The fools.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind anymore that the Left are Islam's Useful Idiots? They are past the point of being appeasers. They are active collaborators.

Free speech is an essential human right.