The Rape of Europe



From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25 20:57
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”


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. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.


Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”


In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”


As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.


“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.

 

Your words are very sad, indeed. I knew all of this was happening in Europe. I had just came to a few different conclusions as to why concerning the hatred Europeans seem to have towards Americans. I thought it was, mainly, because many Europeans have had this love/hate relationship towards Americans for many years now. While most Americans have always looked up to our European cousins with the utmost respect, for some reason, they came to the conclusion that we were somehow arrogant & felt like we were better than them. I suppose if their things were in our faces 24/7, as they claim ours is in theirs 24/7, then we may feel this way, too. But most people whose ancestors moved from a different country usually feel a much greater connection to those people than the people feel towards them, I have noticed. Anyway, some say this love/hate relationship many Europeansn have had towards Americans has always been like a sibling rivarly thing from as far back as when the US first began showing any signs of progress/ success. Then when they added their Muslim immigrant hate propaganda of the US in their countries, it became more of a pure hatred towards the US.

Let's not give up on the Europeans. They were this way, too, with Hitler, remember? They tried very hard to appease him until it became clear it wasn't doing any good. They called anyone stating otherwise...Winston Churchill, for instance...a warmonger, just as they call Bush and Blair today. The Europeans who are wide awake and see what is really happening need to keep debating and screaming to the tops of their lungs to wake the other Europeans up.

As for the video, it surprises me that congress seemed to be surprised about all of this. Our ignorant leaders seem to know little to nothing about what is really happening in the world. I never would have dreamed they could be so blind & uninformed.

 

The ambiguous victory of the democrats


by Olavo de Carvalho



The main result of the legislative elections is the consensus, between the republicans, that the party should abandon bushism and come back to good old conservative line of Goldwater and Reagan, that Bush, for moments, pretended to represent.




In 1975, the American soldiers withdrew of the Vietnam, leaving the free field for the communists, that then promoted the slaughter of 3 millions of civil Vietnamese and Cambodian, the fetidest episode of genocide of the second half of the century XX, exceeding in more from three times the total of dead persons of the war. The result was more than foreseeable, but the loving pacifists that made an effort turn it reality were never charged in the big media by the immeasurable crime that helped to practice. Some, as Noam Chomsky, still did the possible to hide it, and by that are worthy until today like examples of "intellectual uprightness".


Another similar moment is announced for soon in Iraq, by hands of the radical leftists of the Democrat Party, drunken by the easy victory in the Chamber and in the Senate, if are going to lead for the pacifist enthusiasm of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and others that such.


It's difficult that that arrive it happen, therefore, when had the chance of cause to the practical one the proposal of immediate retreat that advocated of the mouth for outside, the democrats recoiled more than fast. They know perfect that the Iran, at present already the most greatest supplier of recruits for the Iraqi terrorism, is promptly for occupy the territory of the neighboring country or at least for carry out there a slaughter without precedents so soon see the American soldiers gone away. And a thing is speak bad of the government, another one is going sharing of the responsibilities of government. In the time in that the democrats were barely opposition, information as that helped them to squeeze Bush in the wall, obliging him it choose between the risk of ignore the threat and the of take alone an unpopular decision. Now, who is in the wall are they.


That's just one of the motives by that, in the most conservative circles, almost nobody is whining a lot the republican defeat.


By their turn, anti-Americans worldwide are commemorating the double democrat victory in the U.S.A. as went the beginning of the end of the "religious right-wing", if not of the "abominable American Empire" entire.


But, if it is truth that American people is even tired of the war in the Iraq, never the international affairs, alone, decided an election in the U.S.A. Nobody doubts of that the Republican Party paid for the sins of George W. Bush, but the national rejection to the president has very less to do with the war than with the attitudes of him regarding public expense, immigration and electoral legislation – and, in those three areas, he did it not against the democrats, and yes with their enthusiastic support. Of them and of that ones called "RINOS" (Republicans In Name Only), as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee.


The most notorious example was the immigration law. While the entire country claimed for drastic measures against the illegal immigration, the president plotted with the rinos and the democrats a ridiculous plan that not alone amnestied the invaders but gave them more rights than the legal immigrants never had. The proposal awoke so much revolt that the conservative republicans in the Chamber of the Representatives frustrated the plan, working against their own president and suppressing of the law against the illegal immigration the device of amnesty.


That was in December. Then already there was conservatives openly calling Bush "TREACHEROUS".


Bush complicated very his own situation when gave support to a new electoral legislation that limited severely the action of the NGOs not-partisan. Now, those NGOs as by example to National Rifle Association, to American Family Foundation and especially the think tanks like to Heritage Foundation or to Claremont Foundation, the main force of the American conservative movement. It is clear that the democrats, that never obtained to mount a think tank that functioned, worshipped to new rule and the conservatives saw in him an explicit treason of Bush to the cause that professed defend.


More motive for revolt the president gave when violated at the same time two sacred laws of the conservatism, spending a mint of the government for increase the state-owned interference in the childlike education, with the help, obviously, of the democrats. The repugnance of the conservatives to the excess in the public expense is traditional, but his resistance to the state-owned education, that barely be moderated, if transformed in ostensible hatefulness when became clear that the American schools were becoming centers of doutrination, left-wing oriented... by the UN.


The worst thing of everything was to sudden revelation of flat secret one of the Council on Foreign Relations in order to dissolve the borders between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico, practically eliminating the American nation as independent political unit. The idea already was old, but when a citizen appealed to the FIA (Freedom of Information Act), obliging the government to divulge the documents about the matter, that's was uncovered Bush already was formally committed with the governments of Canada and of the Mexico it carry out the plan. The Republican Party, where do there is so many members of the CFR when in the Democrat, did not be able to neither approve an about those neither break openly with the president. Confused and undecided, the Party opted for do itself of dead person, what was the even though ask to the voters that buried it.


But it's clear that neither all to fair irritation of the conservatives against Bush would be able to transform-them in left-wingers. What they did was the more intelligent thing to do: chosing the more conservative between the candidates democrats, and voted in them.


(ER: To even to leader of the tropa-de-choque Nancy Pelosi alone obtained itself reelect when silenced the mouth about 'impeachment' and sold to new image of 'moderated' and 'pragmatic'. All the Party Democrat gone to the center, abandoning the left-wing talk. Neither red republican, neither blue democrat. It understood now because the media recognizes that that was the history voting of the voters 'purple'?)


In this way, the success of the Party Democrat was not neither a victory of the left one neither a defeat of the conservatism. Was a defeat of a ambiguous president and of his "rinos" allied.

 

come you fat bastard make some more posts and stop smoking that weed

 

lol, sorry breadbin, been crazy busy (and lazy). Plenty more posts coming soon ;)

 

Home