The Eurabia Code – 2008 Updates
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2008-10-13 19:27
My essay The Eurabia Code was published in 2006, inspired by Bat Ye'or's groundbreaking book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. I have chosen to reproduce The Eurabia Code almost unchanged in my upcoming book Defeating Eurabia, but will include some updates. What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. This hasn't been a total secret previously – in 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe – but why go public with this now? My theory is that EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. They have held us in contempt for years and no longer care to hide this. We are sheep and constitute no threat while they must continue appeasing the Muslims.
Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union" or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel. This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (read: Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process – A Union for the Mediterranean." Notice how they tie this explicitly to the Eurabian Barcelona Process described by Bat Ye'or. Despite this, even after the Mediterranean Union was launched, I heard claims that any talk about Eurabia was a "dangerous Islamophobic conspiracy theory."
In a letter appearing in the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008 revealed that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of the late Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country."
This was the formal birth of Eurabia, when Western European governments, giving in to pressure from Arab terrorists and oil-producing states, abandoned their traditional pro-Israeli position and gradually aligned themselves with the Arab-Islamic world. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Italians were the only ones to make such "deals." In addition to cultural and political cooperation, European governments have agreed to pay Arabs, Palestinians in particular, large sums in "protection money" to reduce the terrorist threat. This can only be seen as jizya, and the practice has later spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.
The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, between 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU's official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.
From 2007, MEDA was replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU's powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project; all according to documents available on the Internet, yet almost unknown to the general public since the mainstream media rarely mention them.
I got some critical comments to my original Eurabia Code, among others a claim that the Algiers Declaration from 2006, which is mentioned in the text, is not signed by any official EU body. However, the Anna Lind Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the dialogue between cultures, which organized this, is linked to from the official EU website as a part of the EU's external relations programs and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Some of the organizations that participate in this may technically be independent organizations, but there is no doubt that the European Commission constitutes the driving force behind these networks. Moreover, if you read these documents closely, you will find that they mention "harmonization of the education systems" between Europe and the Arab world. This requires the involvement of the authorities at the highest level.
In September 2008, a brief statement in a few media outlets in Denmark (I've seen remarkably little mention of this far-reaching proposal in the mainstream media in most European countries) said that Muslims living in the EU will in future be able to divorce according to sharia law. This is the belief of the Commission, which recommends that a couple be able to choose which country's law they will follow if they divorce – as long as they have some kind of connection to the country they choose. Danish People's Party spokesman Morten Messerschmidt was greatly concerned about the proposal: "It's a completely lamebrain idea, the possibility that the Commission will use inhumane sharia laws in the EU," he said.
What people don't understand is that this is a part of long-term deals that have already been agreed upon by EU leaders. Virtually all Western European leaders have already surrendered. There is no longer a question of whether or not sharia will be officially accepted as law (as it has been for Muslims living in Britain); it is only a question of how to implement this.
Meanwhile, a proposed European Arrest Warrant lists a number of crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any interference of the other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.
Racism includes "Islamophobia," according to EU documents, which means that "Islamophobia" could soon be treated as a crime as serious as rape and armed robbery across the European continent. At the same time, EU leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, we can imagine a situation where the authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He will then be handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan.
Remember that blasphemy against Islam carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is about to reach its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot who was arrested in 2008 for cartoons that "insulted" Muslims. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known by the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should "harmonize" the education and legal systems with the Arab "partner countries" within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso earlier expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution referendum. "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable," he said, asking "every member state" considering a referendum to "think twice." Mr Barroso in his previous job as Portuguese Prime Minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country – but since then his thinking has changed. "I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?"
As journalist Nick Fagge stated in the British newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008:
"More than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversiële taxpayer-funded 'job centre' opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting 'free movement of people in Africa and the EU'. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will 'need' 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the 'demographic decline' due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. It states: ...'Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.' The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: 'It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say 'yes', we need immigration …is not a new development, we must accept it.'"
Let's sum up our findings so far: The EU has accepted that the Union should be enlarged to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. The EU has accepted that tens of millions of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in northern Africa should be allowed to settle in Europe in the years ahead. This is supposedly "good for the economy." It is planning to implement sharia laws for the millions of Muslims it is inviting to settle in Europe. It has passed stronger anti-racism laws while making it clear that "Islamophobia" constitutes a form of racism, and is cooperating with Islamic countries on rewriting school textbooks to provide a "positive" image of Islam to European children. Finally, the EU is developing an Arrest Warrant which stipulates that those charged with serious crimes, for instance racism, can be arrested without undue interference of the nation state they happen to live in. In essence, the EU is formally surrendering an entire continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to harass those who disagree with this policy. This constitutes the greatest organized betrayal in Western history, perhaps in human history, yet is hailed as a victory for "tolerance."
José Manuel Barroso, the leader of the unaccountable government for half a billion people, has stated that the EU is an empire. Maybe we think it's ridiculous to see the EU as an empire, but his statement shows that some people in leading positions do think like this. It would make sense to remember that all empires in history have been created through war. If the EU is an empire, this means that a war is being waged against somebody. And it is: A cultural and demographic war waged by mass immigration against native Europeans. Whereas empires are normally created by waging a war against other peoples, the EU is the first empire in history created by leaders allowing other peoples to wage a war against their own.
The European Union – or the Eurabian Empire if you will – is a naked power grab by the elites in order to dismantle the nations there are supposed to serve. Instead of being mere servants of the people in smaller countries, they aspire to become members of an unaccountable elite ruling a vast empire as they see fit. This is why they continue to promote mass immigration as if nothing has happened even if people get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered in their own cities. They don't care. They are generals on a warpath. Ordinary citizens are simply cannon fodder, pawns to be sacrificed in the conquest of their glorious, new empire. Mass immigration is used to crush all nation states simultaneously so that the natives have no real alternatives to flee to, and no countries can come to the aid of others against the advancing Islamization.
Finally, we should remember one thing: All of this started with the appeasement of Arab bullies like Arafat in the 1970s, who used oil or terrorism or both as weapons. Europeans should work to get rid of the culture of betrayal, but then we also need to get rid of the culture of appeasement that brought us in this mess in the first place. No money for the Palestinians; not one cent. If they need money, they can ask the Saudis. And no more appeasement of or deals with Islamic terrorists. It was "dialogue," the Euro-Arab Dialogue, that created these problems. No more "dialogue." The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose, and make him back down. That's the only appropriate way to deal with Jihadists.
A wake up call?
Submitted by pet85022 on Tue, 2008-10-14 20:54.
Iran IS going to develop the bomb real soon that's for sure, thanks to A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan they will be able to put on the end of a North Korean missile. I doubt they will test it first, the test will be if it explodes over Israel.
The problem is the North Korean missile is very inaccurate. In all probability it will solve the Israel - Palestinian problem by vaporizing most of the west bank, or it might solve the Israel - Hezbollah problem by vaporizing southern Lebanon or Iran might get lucky and vaporize some jews. In any event the jews WILL retaliate and there is nothing the UN or the rest of the world can do to stop them. 200 F16's will take off on 1 way missions. 1 will fly high over Iran and detonate, the resultant EMP will fry virtually all Iranian electronics, 198 F16's will than devastate Iran, 1 will fly to Mecca drop an earth penetrator and turn Mecca into a huge radioactive hole in the ground.
The resultant devastation shown on Al Jazeera TV and the realization in the arab world that the jews have at least 100 more and will drop them on the slightest provocation will scare the arab street shitless. The arab governments will be falling all over themselves to sign an everlasting peace treaty with Israel.
This will result in finally having peace in the middle east AND it may just be the thing to wake up the native citizens of Europe from their self induced coma and force them to rebel against the EU elite that is selling them into muslim slavery. If not then there is truly no hope for Europe.
The gnostic war against Christianism
Submitted by ribera on Tue, 2008-10-14 13:15.
Sadly all that is absolutly true. It's astonishing to see how democratic institutions
have allowed a totalitarian shift from within their own rules, exactly has Weimar republic turned into third Reich.
As Aristoteles predicted, democracy has turned to an oligarchy pursuing its own philosophical agenda, which wants to build an united world, with all culture and races merged, and that means they'll be destroyed, as they can exist only as long they can keep their own differences.
The policial elite see such a world the best way to get an absolute power.
But you have to go beyond that : a fact generally unnoticed is this "philosophy" can be explained only has a gnostic religion, very close to freemasonery, and that explains "eurabia" : they want to implement Islam only for destroying Christianism, thinking that they will be able to control it.
A Voegelinian view
Submitted by KO on Tue, 2008-10-14 16:20.
Ribera's reaction would be that of Eric Voegelin, if he were still alive. He not only saw modern political disorder as the product of a Gnostic revolt against classical-Christian order, but included Islam as an example of a Gnostic political religion. Marxism and National Socialism would be other examples, but so would Enlightenment secular rationalism. The classical-Christian order involves man in society seeking attunement with the divine. Gnostic revolt replaces the divine with a false simulacrum thereof, and seeks to realize the simulacrum in the political order of this world, thus "immanentizing the eschaton."
For classical liberalism, embraced by leading contributors to this site, to succeed as a political and economic program, it has to be founded on a classical-Christian culture, not on the rationalistic Gnostic revolt that denies the foundations of classical-Christian order. The championing of local and/or traditional culture and nationality by classical liberals on this site gives reason to believe that classical liberalism yet has much to offer and indeed may lead the conservative movement at this critical time.
to KO : You're very
Submitted by ribera on Wed, 2008-10-15 11:26.
to KO :
You're very litterate. Indeed, I've read several books written by Voegelin (in French : "Sciences, politique et gnose" and specially "La Nouvelle science du politique") where he shows convincingly how modern democraty can be 'distorted' by gnosticism.
But I'm afraid I do not agree with you when you say 'classical liberalism yet has much to offer and indeed may lead the conservative movement'.
I mean that perhaps the matter is liberal and democratic rinciples themselves : they see a society as a covenant freely made by humain beings without refering to a transcendant order, as for example French traditional monarchy did, which was an "image of god's will" in the society.
Even if people believe in God, it's a pure personal and individual stance, which doesn't ensure that society will not go toward other direction (for example, American constitution make references to God, but that has not prevented american society to be what we see).
The French theorist Charles Maurras, who was a royalist, saw how much the trouble is in the democracy itself.
If every democracy ends in the same way, perhaps we have to question the system itself, or find an other kind of democracy, which would not allow to shake the values of occidental civilization.
Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-10-16 00:07.
Thanks to Ribera, but it's no surprize readers of this site have read similar books. Somebody else could probably put this better than I can, but a modest classical liberalism that sees itself as enhancing and facilitating the classical-Christian order might be a worthwhile approach. Classical liberal principles would be seen as a supplement to such an order, not its foundation. They are instrumental, not ontological. They enhance the liberty and prosperity of a society that receives its fundamental principles from religion and tradition; they are not themselves the fundamental principles.
Civil liberties are thus a basis for cognizable claims within a constituted order, but they do not by themselves constitute that order, they simply improve it in the right circumstances.
To be less abstract, people do not have a God-given right to vote; but they do have a God-given right to government in accordance with divine justice, and if the community is sufficiently like-minded, it can choose a generally acceptable governor by letting the majority select the governor. That is merely a pragmatic recognition that like-minded people have different ideas and that a tolerable way to negotiate differences--if people are generally in agreement in desiring to live and work with each other--is to put them to a vote. Freedom of expression is also instrumental in ensuring that the people who have responsibility for choosing their governor are as well informed as they need to be. The right is instrumental, not ontological--people can't say what they like regardless of the consequences just because they are human beings, but they can say what needs to be said to choose their government. They can also say what they like in accordance with their religion and traditions. Freedom of religion is likewise a means of maintaining social peace among people whose agreement on fundamentals permits them to live together despite certain differences. It is an instrumental "right" that is feasible in certain circumstances, though in other circumstances it is a violation of the classical-Christian order.
I agree that "liberal" society by definition adheres to the contract theory of social order and the individual nature of religious belief, but I think original classical liberals like the American Founders and maybe Toqueville understood that society was based on a transcendant order and that liberal principles are essentially tools to secure the benefits of the transcendant order. I don't see that democracy or classical liberalism are doomed to adhere to the contract theory or a purely individualistic concept of religion. Historically Christianity is very communal and democracies can be constituted to secure the benefits of the transcendant order.
Americans naturally would have more faith in the ability of the people to govern themselves than a French royalist like Maurras would have. Voegelin recognized that the American Revolution did not take people down the Gnostic path as later revolutions did. Our Christian democracy maintained its transcendental foundations, and controlled freedom within the bounds prescribed by those foundations.
Submitted by KO on Tue, 2008-10-14 11:20.
Great essay by Fjordman. Now what? Patriotic elements in the major political parties should unite to defy and discredit the EU in every possible way. Given the mass of regulations that issue from Brussels, it should be easy to identify some number of regulations the the peoples of European countries can just stop obeying. They can't arrest all of you! Your national politicians have to learn again to fear their own people more than the traitorous elite.
The Eurabian scheme is self-defeating like other ideological schemes based on false ideas about reality. It will not produce the order, harmony, wealth, and power that its proponents imagine. It will fail at a huge cost in human misery. Better to abandon the whole experiment at an early phase--now.
"The report ... states:
Submitted by jgillmartin on Tue, 2008-10-14 03:46.
"The report ... states: ...'Having sufficient people
of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.'"
It's always the same justifications for one more spin of the almost empty chamber.
But of what utility is the economy or the revenue if the benefactor is dead or enslaved?
John @ The CRIB
To Whom is their allegiance owed?
Submitted by Thalpy on Tue, 2008-10-14 00:05.
If Barroso's and the Commission's allegiance is to anything but Islam it will be short lived at best. The EU will have Islam's full support until it doesn't have its full support. Fjordman has been right about this from the EU's inception.