“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Islamization of Europe

Over at Observanda, Tiger's posted on a recent Paul Belien, Brussels Journal article entitled the Rape of Europe.
Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.
As we watch, the fall of Western Civilization in Europe, the fear is that in a few short years, we'll repeat the process first in Canada and then in the United States. In fact, it has already begun.
“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

It was reported this week that 40% of all children born in the US are born out of wedlock.
2 out of 5...


  1. Well, there he goes: VDH is sending out negative vibes. What a traitor to “Puffie’s Big Plan” is he.
    For the big balls at the EB, feel free to go after VDH; his web site is linked.

    “But there are millions of us still out there who, Jacksonian in spirit, close ranks and will support our troops wherever they are. But we simply cannot ask Americans to die in Anbar province while talking to the Iranians and Syrians who are doing their best through surrogates in killing them.”

    “So apparently we are in another Phony War circa October 1939 to May 1940, awaiting the provocation—another 9/11? A nuclear strike on Israel? A full-fledged brazen Syrian invasion of Lebanon? A terrorist killing of the Pope or mass murder in Paris or Berlin?— that sets us off.”

    Dirty Jew lover

  2. "Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities."

    I wonder how many non-immigrant parents see the writing on the wall and are naming their white babies Mohammed so he will have some kind of future in Eurabia.

  3. I warned you about that VDH a few threads back, Allen!
    C-4 never trusted him.
    Shouda known.

  4. What's needed in Iran a slow grinding process to deplete its economic military and political reserves.

  5. Woman Catholic said on a previous thread:

    "I've already debunked this piece of WorldNetDaily sensationalism. The CFR report recommends greater cooperation between Canada, the US, and Mexica qua seperate sovereign states."

    The EU began as purely an economic union and was then increased incrementally. The notion of spillover was expected whereas ocntinued integration would become self-perpetuating from area to area. Had it been sold originally based upon political union the various Western European naitonalities never would have accepted it.

    Now, let's look at what two of the CFR chairs in question, Pedro Aspe
    and William F. Weld, wrote that March:

    "To make North America more competitive and secure, the three leaders should announce a plan to establish a North American security and economic community by 2010. The aim of this community would be to guarantee a free, safe, just and prosperous North America. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter, within which the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and secure."

    Yeah, no EU or Schengen there.

    What the EU taught was that sovereignty doesn't mean shit when a country's leadership, irrespective of the will of its people, decides to bargain it away.

  6. What there goal is, of course, no internal borders and free movement between Mexico, the US, and Canada a la Schengen.

    At which point 'sovereignty' is a bad joke.

    And afterwhich they'll work on direct political union.

    Course, given enough time we'll probably be screwed for them to finish that one.

  7. *their

    *too screwed up

  8. The way to advance in any large old-style bureaucracy, including the U.S. Army, is to demonstrate success at leading ever larger-sized chunks of the organization. An officer taking time away from this path to spend it on an eleven-man advisor team in some forgotten location would seem to be making a poor career choice. It is thus up to people like the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense himself to rewrite these old rules. After all, they need a new, sustainable, and winning doctrine more than anyone.

    Quite a mouthful --from rufus's 10:39 PM link to Westhawk.

  9. Yeah, buddy, that was the case twenty some years ago, it is still true today.

    It is what I've been saying for years now. Perhaps some progress is being made, at Fort Riley, but who knows how long it will take to effect any real change.

    It is a question that strikes to the core of the military mission.

    If the US force is not going to "grow" and the need for boots on the ground does, where else do we find those boots, but "over there"?

  10. Fundamental questions--how does a government bureaucracy go underground, in the post-Church Committee era?

  11. Why go "underground" the empowerment of a far flung series of proxies is nothing to hide.

    Not if you were proud of their service to yur cause.

    A "Legion of the Americas" bet we could raise 250,000 thousand troops at under $1,000 per month per trooper in base & benefits pay

    An "African Legion", the payroll could be even less.

    The boots do not have to be US and we need not be ashamed of individuals that wish to join US. We should allow those people to rally, as individuals, to our cause.

  12. It's a great concept. Shouldn't have to be underground, either, you're right. If one of the guys spits on the sidewalk, somewhere, tho, katy bar the press door.