Posted tagged ‘Multiculturalism’

Merkel is the administrator of the West’s downfall

December 1, 2017

Merkel is the administrator of the West’s downfall, Israel National News, Giulio Meotti, November 29, 2017

Merkel never joined the Western efforts to defeat Islamic terrorism. She commands the world’s fourth largest economy and Europe’s financial giant, but her country is a military dwarf, weak and disarmed. For Merkel, sending fighting troops abroad, even to defeat ISIS, always looked unthinkable.

Merkel’s former foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, even made the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Germany one of his top priorities. Merkel has also been crucial in the political ransom Turkey’s Erdogan has been able to deploy in the migrants crisis, one of the most important factors in causing chaos on the continent since the Second World War.

Merkel’s open door policy is the product of two factors: the German declining birth rates of the last 40 years, a collective demographic suicide, and the permanent sense of guilt for the Holocaust, for the right moral reasons but the wrong political goals.

Karl Lagerfeld, the creative director of Chanel and Fendi, during the French television show Salut les Terriens just criticized Merkel for allowing one million migrants to enter the country in 2015.

*******************************************

Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats should have been the winner in the September 24 German elections. The national unemployment rate is 3.7 percent and the economic growth is 2 percent. But Merkel now faces the biggest political impasse in Germany since 1949 with difficulties in forming a new coalition.

The question is: who is Angela Merkel?

Unlike her Christian Democratic predecessors, Chancellor Merkel has no crosses hanging on the walls of her office. She is the daughter of a Protestant pastor from the period when there was an East Germany. She never talks about “values” in public. She is the perfect mirror of a skeptical and post-Christian continent where faith has been totally privatised.

Merkel has no children. Neither do most of Europe’s current leaders. To mention some, the prime ministers of Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK and the French President Emammuel Macron have no chlldren either.

“If the Germans don’t have children, does it matter who inherits their country?”, asked David Goldman in the Asia Times. “Why not their house pets?”.

Merkel is a cunning politician personifying a cynical mixture of wealthy multiculturalism and moral relativism. Merkel allowed the Bundestag to vote on gay marriage, despite her party’s contrary opinion. She did it only for electoral reasons – to deprive the Social Democrats of a big reason to gain votes.

Merkel never joined the Western efforts to defeat Islamic terrorism. She commands the world’s fourth largest economy and Europe’s financial giant, but her country is a military dwarf, weak and disarmed. For Merkel, sending fighting troops abroad, even to defeat ISIS, always looked unthinkable.

Merkel’s former foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, even made the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Germany one of his top priorities. Merkel has also been crucial in the political ransom Turkey’s Erdogan has been able to deploy in the migrants crisis, one of the most important factors in causing chaos on the continent since the Second World War.

Merkel’s open door policy is the product of two factors: the German declining birth rates of the last 40 years, a collective demographic suicide, and the permanent sense of guilt for the Holocaust, for the right moral reasons but the wrong political goals.

Karl Lagerfeld, the creative director of Chanel and Fendi, during the French television show Salut les Terriens just criticized Merkel for allowing one million migrants to enter the country in 2015.

“One cannot — even if there are decades between them — kill millions of Jews so you can bring millions of their worst enemies in their place”, Lagerfeld said. He cited an anecdote in support of his assumptions that Jewish people and refugees are at odds. “I know someone in Germany who took a young Syrian in and after four days he said, ‘The greatest thing Germany invented was the Holocaust,’” he said. Lagerfeld also suggested that Merkel felt she needed to take in more migrants in 2015 to counteract the image she was given as “the wicked stepmother in the story of the Greek [financial] crisis”.

Merkel is the daughter of the German unity that arose after the fall of Berlin Wall, the protégé of Helmut Kohl. “The reunification of Germany was the last big goal for Germans” said Gustav Gressel, a defence expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “After that everyone fell into this ‘end of history’ feeling – everything is good, we’re all friends and it has to stay that way”.

The Germans feel they must atone for their past deeds and their present wealth by embracing a post-national, post-Christian and post-heroic Western model.

Greg Sheridan of The Australian was right when he called Merkel “the chief agent of Europe’s demise”. But she is more than that. My friend Henryk Broder, the German Jewish journalist, said that Germany has committed to “disappear” from history.

At the time of Western twilight, Angela Merkel is the perfect administrator working for her own downfall.

As the End of Merkelism Nears, What Next for Germany?

November 23, 2017

As the End of Merkelism Nears, What Next for Germany? PJ Media,  Michael Walsh, November 23, 2017

Der Untergang (Bernd von Jutrczenka/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

The worst German chancellor since you-know-who — and one likely to prove almost as destructive to her own country and Europe as her predecessor — has finally worn out her welcome:

Angela Merkel’s worries continue as the latest polls reveal the majority of Germans did not want her to run as a candidate for Chancellor again. The survey, carried out in the coalition talks breakdown, makes worrying reading for Angela Merkel. While Mrs Merkel said yesterday she wanted to stand again in any new snap election the German people appear to be turned off by the prospect. Of those polled, 54 per cent said she should not run for office, according to the polling institute Civey for t-online.de. Only 38.5 percent of Germans would welcome a renewed candidacy of the chancellor.

If you’re wondering why Merkel — who just recently “won” her recent re-election — is thinking about running again so soon, here’s the reason: while her “conservative” party, the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian counterpart, the Christian Socialist Union), emerged again as the largest party in the Bundestag, she can’t form a functioning government without some sort of tactical alliance with one or more of the other parties. And that isn’t happening.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany faced the greatest crisis of her career on Monday after negotiations to form a new government collapsed, shaking a country that is Europe’s political and economic anchor. The breakdown abruptly raised the prospect of new elections in Germany. It came less than two months after the last elections seemed to assure that Ms. Merkel, an icon of Western democracy and values, would remain Germany’s leader for a fourth term.

The chancellor said she remained hopeful about forming a majority government. But if forced to choose, Ms. Merkel said, she would prefer to go through new elections rather than try to lead a minority government.

Of course she would: since allowing into Germany (and thus Europe) more than a million unwashed, unvetted Muslims, largely illiterate in Western languages, ways, and mores, Mutti Merkel and her stock have sunk among the German voting public, which made the anti-invasion fringe party, the AfD (Alternative for Deutschland), the third-largest party in parliament. The chancellor is now toxic, as long-repressed Germans finally cast off the last of their guilt over World War II and come to understand that foreign Muslims are in no way analogous to German Jews during the National Socialist period, and that laws meant to protect Jews and other peoples undergoing actual suffering do not apply to a horde of cultural aliens seeking “a better life” while trying to impose their savagery on the land of Luther.

The collapse of talks reflected the deep reluctance of Ms. Merkel’s conservative bloc and prospective coalition partners — the ecologist-minded Greens and pro-business Free Democrats — to compromise over key positions. The Free Democrats quit the talks late Sunday, citing what they called an atmosphere of insincerity and mistrust.

“There is no coalition of the willing to form a government,” said Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, director of the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund. “This is uncharted territory since 1949. We’re facing a protracted period of political immobility. Not only is this not going to go away soon, there is no clear path out.”

Welcome to reality, Germany. Since the end of the war — and certainly since reunification — the Germans have lived in a fool’s paradise in which their guilt morphed into a sense of social and moral superiority to the rest of the world, especially regarding their protector, the United States of America. Shielded by American troops and nuclear weapons from the Russian bear for half a century, they spent little or nothing on their own defense, and instead created a social democracy for themselves that worked just fine as long as a) worker productivity stayed sky-high and b) nobody cheated the system.  But as the pernicious doctrine of multi-culturalism — called Multikulti in German — penetrated German society, the system could no longer hold.

Diversity proved to be its death.

As things turned out, the vaunted German superiority turned out to be helpless in the face of the “progressive” Left (Germany is inordinately fond of socialism — where do you think Marx came from?). Housebroken since the late 1940s to avoid “extremism,” German politics evolved as a revolving door between slightly right of center and a little further left of center — with “center” defined as democratic socialism. Now, in the face of hordes of Syrian doctors, Afghan basket-weavers, African drummers, Arab falafel-shop proprietors, and other cultural enrichers, the postwar political consensus is collapsing. “Wir shaffen das!” was Merkel’s slogan: “We can do it.” In fact, they couldn’t.

Some were quick to link Germany’s disorder to a broader crisis of democracy in the West. “The unthinkable has happened,” said Christiane Hoffmann, deputy head of the Berlin bureau of Der Spiegel, a German magazine. In that sense, she said, “This is Germany’s Brexit moment, its Trump moment.”

The East German Merkel’s reputation was always inordinately high among her fellow travelers in the West, who saw her as both a childless progressive and an unattractive woman, celebrated accordingly, and looked no farther. The media needed a symbol of European “resistance” to both Brexit and Trump, and they thought they had one with her. They relied on German passivity and pre-Muslim invasion social consensus to keep things stable, since it literally made no material difference whether the CDU or its main rival, the SPD (the Social Democratic Party), was in power, first in Bonn and now in Berlin.

Alas, it may still be that Germany’s version of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party will yet come to her rescue:

The leader of Germany’s Social Democrats came under growing pressure on Thursday to drop his opposition to a new “grand coalition” with Angela Merkel’s conservatives, with senior politicians arguing the party had a duty to promote stability. Merkel is facing the biggest political crisis of her career since efforts to forge a three-way coalition with the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) and Greens collapsed last weekend. That has raised worries across Europe of a prolonged leadership vacuum in the continent’s economic powerhouse.

The Social Democrats (SPD) have governed in coalition under Merkel since 2013. But leader Martin Schulz said the party must heed the will of voters by going into opposition after achieving its worst result of the postwar period in the Sept. 24 election. Pressure is growing on the party to revisit his decision, either by agreeing to prop up a conservative-led minority government by not voting against it, or by forming a renewed coalition.

As we all know, Leftists abhor a “power vaccum,” and will rush right in to fill it. And don’t underestimate how powerful those forces are: the entire American media will cheer any announcement of a new right-left coalition, and the entire European Union is praying for it. The peasants are revolting, and something simply must be done and quickly, until the next Muslim atrocity strikes and the electorate remembers exactly who visited this plague upon them.

But the rumblings of the Blond Beast can be heard in the distance, growing louder. From the battle of Teutoburg Forest to Stalingrad, nothing good has ever come of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France: October 2017

November 10, 2017

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France: October 2017, Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, November 10, 2017

Article 57 of the French Civil Code states that the name chosen by parents must be in “the best interests of the child.” If the public prosecutor thinks the name “Jihad” is contrary to the law, he can ask a judge to order the name to be changed. If the parents are unable or unwilling to choose a new name, the judge has the right to choose a name.

Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, according to Le Figaro.

Henda Ayari, in an interview with Le Parisien, gave detailed public testimony accusing Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. She said that Ramadan believes that “either you wear a veil or you get raped.”

October 1. A 29-year-old illegal immigrant from Tunisia stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille. Witnesses heard the assailant shout “Allahu Akbar” as he lunged at the women with a 20-centimetre (eight-inch) knife before threatening soldiers, who shot him dead. The man, identified as Ahmed Hanachi, was using seven different identities and had a long criminal history. He had been arrested in Lyon for shoplifting just days before the attack, but those charges were dropped due to a lack evidence. He was released, despite not having the documents needed to live in France. Why he was never deported remains unclear.

October 2. Five people were arrested in Paris after police found four makeshift bombs at a building in the 16th arrondissement, one of the city’s most exclusive neighborhoods. Police said there was no one living in the apartment block who might be considered a target for jihadists. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb surmised that the bomb was simply meant to create fear: “Blowing up a building in a posh neighborhood shows that no one is safe…that it could happen anywhere in France.” He added: “This shows that the level of the threat in France is extremely high…yes, even if the Islamic State has suffered military setbacks, we are still in a state of war.”

October 2. The trial began of Abdelkader Merah, the 35-year-old brother of Mohamed Merah. In March 2012, Mohamed in March 2012 had gone on a nine-day shooting spree in southern France, killing three soldiers and gunning down a teacher and three children at a Jewish school before being shot dead by police. Abdelkader stands accused of “knowingly” helping to facilitate the “preparation” of the attack, in particular by stealing the scooter used for the three separate shootings. He appeared alongside 34-year-old Fettah Malki, accused of giving Mohamed Merah a bulletproof jacket, an Uzi submachine gun and the ammunition he unloaded on his victims. Abdelkader Merah faces a possible life sentence while Malki could get 20 years in prison.

October 5. Six gas canisters attached to a “crude detonator device” were found under several trucks at a cement company in Paris. The trucks, parked in the French capital’s northeastern 19th arrondissement, belonged to Franco-Swiss cement company Lafarge-Holcim. Lafarge is being investigated over claims that it paid taxes to the Islamic State and other armed groups in Syria to keep a plant running in a war zone. The company admitted that it resorted to “unacceptable measures” to continue operations at a now-closed cement factory in northern Syria in 2013 and 2014, after most French groups had quit the war-torn country.

October 6. A French woman who travelled three times to Syria in support of her jihadist son was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being part of a terrorist conspiracy. Christine Rivière, 51, was sentenced for her “unfailing commitment” to jihad and for helping a number of young women travel to Syria to marry jihadists, including her son, Tyler Vilus. Rivière, a Muslim convert who was nicknamed “Mama Jihad,” said of her son: “I didn’t want to push him to die a martyr, but that could happen. Then he would be in heaven, near Allah.”

October 6. French prosecutors charged three men in connection with a makeshift explosive device made of gas canisters, placed inside an apartment block in western Paris. Amine A, his cousin Sami B, and Aymen B., were charged with “attempted murder in an organized group in connection with a terrorist enterprise” and placed in pre-trial detention. All three were arrested on October 2, two days after the device was found in the exclusive 16th arrondissement. Amine A., 30, and Aymen B., 29, are both on the terror watch list.

October 9. French police and intelligence services are surveilling around 15,000 jihadists living on French soil, according to Le Journal du Dimanche. Of these, some 4,000 are at “the top of the spectrum” and most likely to carry out an attack.

October 10. President Emmanuelle Macron announced a plan to open immigration offices in Niger and Chad to identify persons eligible for asylum on lists provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and bring them directly to France. The stated aim is to “better prevent an influx of economic migrants” who are not eligible for asylum. In all, France will take in 10,000 people, not only from Niger and Chad, but also from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, by October 2019.

October 11. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb announced the dismissal of the central government’s top representative in the southern Rhône region, after a report criticized “errors of judgement” and “serious faults” in handling foreigners whose papers are not in order. The report was commissioned after 29-year-old Tunisian Ahmed Hanachi stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille on October 1.

October 11. A 20-year-old woman was arrested in Rouen on suspicion that she may have played a role in a jihadist attack on a church in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray. On July 26, 2016, two jihadists had broken into the church and murdered Father Jacques Hamel while he was celebrating mass. While leaving the church, they were shot dead by the police. A few hours later, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack. Police say that shortly before the attack, the woman had been in contact with one of the jihadists.

October 12. A French intelligence agent accidentally sent a text message to the mobile phone of a jihadist, inadvertently warning him that he was under surveillance and being monitored, according to M6 television. The target, a “proselytizing Islamist” living in Paris, responded by directly calling the agent and informing him of his mistake.

October 12. The interior ministry announced that France will maintain border checks with its European neighbors until April 30, 2018, because of “persistent” terror threats. The 1985 Schengen Agreement ended passport checks and other protective measures on borders, but after the jihadist attacks in Paris in November 2015, France resumed them.

France recently announced that it will maintain border checks with its European neighbors until April 30, 2018, because of “persistent” terror threats. France resumed passport checks and other protective measures on borders after the November 2015 jihadist attacks in Paris. Pictured: French border and customs police control vehicles at the France-Italy border. (Photo by Murielle Gander Cransac/Getty Images)

October 15. A groundbreaking ceremony was held in Strasbourg to expand the Eyüp Sultan Mosque. The 32 million euro ($37 million) project will make the mosque one of the biggest in Europe. The 15-acre site will include a school, a library, conference rooms, restaurants and boutiques, as well as a prayer room for up to 3,000 worshippers. The mosque, which will be redesigned according to Ottoman architecture, will have 28 domes and 44-meter-high (145-foot) minarets. Local officials say the mosque will contribute to the religious, architectural and cultural diversity of Strasbourg.

October 16. President Emmanuel Macron pledged to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes in France. He said that even without new legislation, “we can take tougher measures” and expel illegal immigrants if they commit a crime, “whatever it may be.” He added: “We are not taking all the steps that should be taken. Well, that’s going to change.” He was speaking after it emerged that a Tunisian who stabbed two women to death in Marseille had been arrested in Lyon two days earlier for shoplifting.

October 18. President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a plan to bolster France’s domestic security. A key promise was to hire 10,000 extra police and gendarmes during the next five years. He also proposed to create a new “daily security police” (police de la sécurité du quotidian, PSQ) which would be deployed in “priority neighborhoods from the point of view of insecurity.” The PSQ, community police charged with fighting crime at the local level, will be tested in about fifteen localities in early 2018. In addition, Macron announced a plan to combat radicalization and to reform of asylum procedures to bring them in line with those of Germany. Finally, he promised to speed up the deportations of illegal immigrants who commit crimes in France. “We don’t welcome people well; our procedures are too long; we don’t integrate people properly and neither do we send enough people back,” Macron said. “We should take our fair share, but we can’t just welcome in all the world’s poor people.”

October 20. Prosecutors in Toulouse launched an investigation after receiving a report that a couple in nearby Léguevin named their newborn son “Jihad.” Article 57 of the French Civil Code states that the name chosen by parents must be in “the best interests of the child.” A justice ministry memo on the topic states that local registrars must inform the public prosecutor if a name appears to be contrary to the law. If the public prosecutor thinks the name “Jihad” is contrary to the law, he can ask a judge to order the name to be changed. If the parents are unable or unwilling to choose a new name, the judge has the right to choose a name.

October 20. Henda Ayari, a former Salafist who is now a Muslim feminist activist, accused prominent Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. Ramadan, a grandson of the founder of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, denied her accusations. Some of his supporters criticized Ayari on social media, insinuating that if the assault did take place, it was her own fault because Islam forbids an unmarried woman to be alone with a man. Others claimed that Ramadan is a victim of “international Zionism” and that the charges were “fabricated by Jews.”

October 22. Eight people, including three minors, were charged with “criminal terrorist conspiracy” for plotting to attack left-wing politicians, migrants and mosques. An investigation found that the group, led by Logan Alexandre Nisin, a 21-year-old far-right activist based in Provence, planned to buy weapons, organize paramilitary training exercises and conduct shooting practice.

October 23. An official inquiry cast doubt on allegations that the French police had abused migrants in the northern port city of Calais. Human Rights Watch had accused police of a disproportionate use of force against migrants as well as aid workers when the notorious Calais migrant camp, known as the “jungle,” was dismantled in October 2016. The inquiry said that some abuse was “plausible” but that there was no proof it had occurred. It added that accusations that police had used pepper spray against migrants while they were sleeping were “without foundation.” The report found that many of the injuries sustained by migrants were due to brawls among migrants. “There is no evidence to prove the most serious allegations made,” Interior Minister Gérard Collomb said.

October 24. France issued an arrest warrant for Redouane Sebbar, a 25-year-old Moroccan man being held in Germany and suspected of helping plan an August 2015 attack on high-speed train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris.

October 26. Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, according to Le Figaro.

October 30. Henda Ayari, in an interview with Le Parisien, gave detailed public testimony accusing Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. She said that Ramadan believes that “either you wear a veil or you get raped.” Ramadan denied the accusations as a “campaign of slander.” Since Ayari’s original allegation, two more women have filed sexual assault complaints against Ramadan.

October 30. President Emmanuel Macron formally signed a new counter-terrorism law that gives prefects, police and security forces wide-ranging powers — without the need to seek prior approval from a judge — to search homes, place people under house arrest and close places of worship. The measure also authorizes police to perform identity checks at French borders. The new law, adopted by the French Senate on October 18, makes permanent many of the previously exceptional measures imposed under a two-year-old state of emergency, which was introduced after the jihadist attacks in Paris in November 2015. That state of emergency was slated to expire on November 1. Macron said the new law strikes the right balance between security and respect for civil liberties. Hardliners countered that it does not go far enough, while human rights groups complained that it will leave France in a permanent state of emergency.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

France’s Islamic WWIII

October 6, 2017

France’s Islamic WWIII, FrontPage Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 6, 2017

(Please see also, What Is America’s National Identity?  It is not, and must not become, multiculturalism, which rejects national identity. — DM)

Demographics dictate that France’s terror problem will only keep growing. And the French authorities understand this. That’s why its governments increasingly talk about Islamic terrorism as a lasting threat.

Our War on Terror has squandered endless blood and treasure while avoiding the root cause. Western nations deploy massive armies to root out small terror networks while allying with their Gulf backers. Soldiers patrol major cities waiting for a terrorist or several terrorists to attack. Meanwhile the mosques that indoctrinate them to hate and kill non-Muslims are also protected by those same soldiers.

That’s not how you win a war. It’s how you lose everything.

******************************

Interior Minister Gerard Collomb made it official. France is “in a state of war”.

It’s not just rhetoric. Bombs turn up in a posh Parisian suburb. Two young women are butchered at a train station. And it’s just another week of an Islamic World War III being fought in France.

From the November attacks in 2015 that killed 130 people and wounded another 400+, to the Bastille Day truck ramming attack last year that killed 86 and wounded 458, the war is real.

French casualties in France are worse than in Afghanistan. The French lost 70 people to Islamic terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. And 239 to Islamic terrorist attacks in France.

The French losses in Afghanistan were suffered in over a decade of deployment in one of the most dangerous Islamic areas in the world. The French losses in France were suffered in less than two years.

There’s something very wrong when Afghanistan is safer than Paris.

10,000 French soldiers were deployed in the streets of their own country in Operation Sentinelle after the Charlie Hebdo – Kosher supermarket attacks in 2015. Thousands of French soldiers are still patrolling, guarding and shooting in French cities which have become more dangerous than Afghanistan.

Operation Sentinelle has deployed twice as many French soldiers to France as to Afghanistan. And French casualties in the Islamic war at home have been far higher that they were in Afghanistan.

When the French intervened to stop the Islamist takeover of Mali, they suffered a handful of losses. The 4,000 French soldiers came away from Operation Serval with 9 casualties and Operation Barkhane amounted to 5 dead. The Gulf War? Another 9 dead. It’s a lot safer to be a French soldier fighting Al Qaeda in a Muslim country than a Parisian civilian going to a concert in his or her own city.

French casualties in the struggle with Islamic terror in just the last two years are approaching the 300 casualties of the Korean War.

France is at war. That’s why there are soldiers in the streets.

Its new anti-terrorism bill creates a permanent state of emergency. Suspected extremists can be placed under “administrative detention” in their own homes and neighborhoods under police surveillance and remote monitoring.

Pop-up checkpoints can appear in public spaces that are designated as “security zones” where anyone can be stopped and searched. Mosques can be shut down for six months. Public gatherings can be banned. Warrantless searches can be conducted within miles of potential targets.

The Interior Ministry will have police state powers. And it will be able to wield quite a few of them without having to go through the formality of asking judges nicely for permission.

Some of these measures should be familiar. France is the new Israel.

France’s Interior Minister called the anti-terrorism bill, a “lasting response to a lasting threat”. The choice of words recognizes that Islamic terrorism is here to stay.

The “State of War” is permanent. And France has no plans for winning the war. Instead it’s trying to get better at playing defense. And that’s what most Western domestic counterterrorism efforts amount to.

France is just taking the lead because it has the biggest problem.

The British put soldiers on the streets after the Manchester Arena bombing. The Italians and the Belgians began deploying soldiers in cities around the same time that the French did.

When an illegal alien Muslim terrorist due to be deported murdered two young women in Marseille while shouting, “Allahu Akbar”, French soldiers opened fire. The 24-year-old who shot the terrorist was a reserve member of a regiment of combat engineers in the French Foreign Legion.

The French Foreign Legion isn’t off fighting in a foreign desert somewhere. It’s fighting in France.

French soldiers are told to loudly announce, “Stop or I Shoot”. And then open fire. And that’s what he did. And French soldiers are being forced to learn the phrase and expect to come under attack.

In February, French soldiers were attacked by a Muslim terrorist outside the Louvre. The Egyptian Jihadist shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and came after them with a machete. One soldier from the 1st Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes was wounded. The attacker was shot down.

The 1st Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes had been deployed to Afghanistan and Mali. Now they were at the Louvre. You don’t need to be Napoleon to know that counts as a major retreat.

A month later, a Muslim terrorist shouted “I am here to die in the name of Allah” while holding a female air force soldier hostage at Orly Airport.

He got his wish courtesy of her fellow soldiers.

In August, six soldiers from the 35th Infantry Regiment were hit by a BMW driven by a Muslim terrorist. Members of a regiment which had been deployed in Afghanistan were sent to a military hospital after an attack in the wealthy Levallois-Perret suburb of Paris. A year earlier, soldiers from the 5th Infantry Regiment had been hit by a Tunisian shouting, “Allahu Akbar” while they were guarding a mosque.

France has entered its longest state of emergency since the Algerian War. The 2015 attacks saw its first state of emergency since 1961. But where is France supposed to withdraw from this time? Paris?

It was one thing to abandon the beleaguered Algerian Christians and Jews to Muslim terror. And to abandon them a second time when they fled to France only to face persecution by their old Islamic neighbors who had tagged along and settled down in Marseille. But can France abandon the French?

The issue once again is colonialism. But the new colonists are Algerians, Tunisians and other Islamic imperialists who have settled in France and wave the black flag of the Jihad over their no-go zone settlements in French cities. And they have made it abundantly clear that they will not stop there.

Last year, former Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that, “Every day attacks are foiled… as we speak.”

And it’s no wonder. Thousands of Muslim settlers left France to fight in Syria and Iraq. Valls was looking at 15,000 potential threats domestically. France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. We don’t know exactly how many millions of Muslim settlers live in France. But we can measure their growth by the expansion of the terror threat. Islamic terrorism is, despite the spin, reducible to Islam.

There is no Islamic terrorism without Islam. As Islam expands, so does Islamic terrorism.

France is in the middle of a civil war. The civil war is based on religious differences. As the religious divide between the Islamic colonists and the militantly secular French government increases, the violence will worsen. The outcome of the war will determine whether France will be a secular republic or an Islamic state. The Jihadists have a plan for winning the war.  The French authorities don’t.

And what goes for France also goes for Western Europe. And for the West.

The French combination of social appeasement and police state enforcement isn’t working. The same model ultimately fails wherever it’s applied. Breaking up terror cells and stopping attacks is far better than the alternative, but the scale of the problem will always continue increasing because of demographic growth and a globalized terror infrastructure.

Demographics dictate that France’s terror problem will only keep growing. And the French authorities understand this. That’s why its governments increasingly talk about Islamic terrorism as a lasting threat.

Our War on Terror has squandered endless blood and treasure while avoiding the root cause. Western nations deploy massive armies to root out small terror networks while allying with their Gulf backers. Soldiers patrol major cities waiting for a terrorist or several terrorists to attack. Meanwhile the mosques that indoctrinate them to hate and kill non-Muslims are also protected by those same soldiers.

That’s not how you win a war. It’s how you lose everything.

The German AfD party has surged and Europe is falling apart

September 26, 2017

The German AfD party has surged and Europe is falling apart, Israel National News, Giulio Meotti, September 26, 2017

(Please see also, Misrepresenting Germany in ‘The New York Times’ — DM)

The German chancellors come and go. But their country is here to stay. And their ideological model, not the 13% so called “neo-Nazis”, is what is endangering Europe.

********************************

In the course of last year, the European Union has faced an emergency known as the so-called “populist wave”: Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen in France, Ernst Hofer in Austria, Brexit in the UK, AfD now in Germany.

The mainstream media repeats the mantra that behind this right-wing surge lies the xenophobic and fascist hate that has raised its head in Europe, citing Vladimir Putin with his hackers, Donald Trump and his tweets, and other children’s fairy tales. These are the real fake newsmongers.

What lies behind the right-wing surge is, instead, the big cultural shock that hit at the heart of the European democracies.

It is a shock caused by the multicultural disaster (Muslim ghettos, sexual rape during the night in Cologne, chaos in the suburbs), the Islamist massacres (Charlie Hebdo, Hyper Cacher, Bataclan, Theo van Gogh, Nice, Brussels, Copenaghen, Stockholm, Berlin…), the ideological shock (derision of the people by the élites and political correctness), rampant anti-Christian secularization and massive illegal immigration (2.2 million people illegally entered Europe in 2015-2016).

So many physical, cultural, demographic and social borders are in a state of collapse. If Europe stays under siege in its Berlaymont Palace in Brussels without realizing the roots of these political earthquakes, Europe’s walls will be the next to fall.

The main reason behind Brexit was the British fear of German’s immigration chaos. But what about the day all the Syrians Mrs. Merkel allowed in become German citizens? Will the UK still be able to reject and refuse them entry if London is still part of the EU?

Mr. Wilders’ political career is the result of two political assassinations linked to Islam: Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. He is a survivor.

The rising of Marine Le Pen is the fruit of 50 years of bad French integration policies.

And the AfD’s success is all related to Merkel’s decision to open the doors to one million Syrians.

Germany is a country sick of complacency (“a happy country” said one of Merkel’s slogans) and “frivolity” (the definition that comes from the newspaper Handelsblatt), a wealthy society based on suicidal multicultural ideology and cultural self-censorship (any German book critical of Islam has been demonized and marginalized, from Thilo Sarrazin to Rolf Peter Sieferle), a democracy built on pacifism (the German army is a joke) and a perennial sense of guilt-caused indigestion, which thinks that a border exists only to be overcome (Rudiger Safranski).

The German chancellors come and go. But their country is here to stay. And their ideological model, not the 13% so called “neo-Nazis”, is what is endangering Europe.

Lessons from Europe’s Immigrant Wave: Douglas Murray Cautions America

July 24, 2017

Lessons from Europe’s Immigrant Wave: Douglas Murray Cautions America, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abigail R. Esman, July 24, 2017

Douglas Murray has long voiced his concern about the growing influence of Muslim culture on the West. The associate editor of Britain’s Spectator, a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a think tank on radical Islam, he has built an international reputation for his opposition to the demographic changes of the West and the threats to its traditions. In his latest book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (Bloomsbury, 2017), he attacks all of these subjects as they relate to the current crisis of migration from the Middle East.

It is a controversial book, particularly for Americans and Jews, but one which also makes important arguments against the multiculturalist ideal. That ideal, which once led much of domestic policy across Europe and the United States, has proven not only a failure, but a threat to the values and national security of Western civilization.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism recently spoke with Murray about his book and the concerns that drove him to write it.

Abigail R. Esman: As an American, a Jew, and an immigrant myself to the Netherlands, there are aspects of your arguments against immigration and asylum that are troublesome to me. I come from a country where we are all immigrants, or our parents or grandparents were likely immigrants. You talk for instance of families where “neither parent speaks English as a first language,” yet my husband is Australian and I am American and neither of us speaks Dutch as a first language. So naturally, I come at these arguments with some concern. Are you saying, basically, close the borders?

Douglas K . Murray: It’s only for me to diagnose what’s happening – to see the truth about what is going on. Policy makers will make their own decisions. I have obviously broad views on it, which is that I think you can’t continue at the rate we have now, and I think you have to be choosy about the people you bring in. But you are right, and there are two groups of people who have had trouble with some of the basic things in this book: one is people of Jewish background, and others who come from nations of immigrants, like America. But Britain isn’t a nation of immigrants – we have been a static society with all the benefits and ills that this brings. And I think it is dishonest to say it is the same thing. I realize people who are predominantly Jewish have a particular sensitivity to it, but I think that that’s a particular issue. And why do we say one migration is just like the other It’s like saying because two vehicles went down the same road they are the same vehicle.

ARE: How is it different?

DKM: In the UK, when Jewish migration happened more than a century ago, the main thing was integration, integration into the society, wanting desperately to be part of British society. Why do synagogues in the UK have a portrait of the Queen? And after services, they often sing the British national anthem. It’s very moving. It’s an effort to demonstrate this is what we are and this is what we want to be. You’d be hard pressed to find a mosque with a picture of the queen who sing the anthem.

ARE: That element of integration is crucial, I agree. In America, in fact, immigrants in the past and often even today are eager to give their children Anglicized names: “Michael,” not “Moishe,” “Henry,” not “Heinrich.” Yet you do not see the name changes in Muslims these days. Why do you think that is?

DKM: Because there is less of a feeling to integrate. They want to stay with the country they’ve left but not deal with its economics. Some people find it flattering – that people want to move to your country – they say well, it shows what a wonderful place we are. No, it shows that your economics work better.

ARE: You also write about Muslim enclaves in Europe where “the women all wear some form of head covering and life goes on much as it would if the people were in Turkey or Morocco.” How is that different than, say, Chinatowns, or Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in America and say, Belgium, where women wear wigs and men have peyas, or sidelocks?

DKM: The example of Chinatown-like places is a good comparison. These are places that are mini-Chinas, they are enjoyed and liked by people because they are a different place. Well, if people want to have a mini-Bangladesh, that’s one vision of a society. It’s not the vision we were sold in Europe. It was not meant to be the case that portions of our cities were meant to become totally different places. In the 1950s the British and other European authorities said we have to bring people into our countries and we will get a benefit in labor. But if they had said that the downside is that large portions of the area would be unrecognizable to their inhabitants, there would have been an outcry.

And the issue of them being different from Hasidic communities – you’re right, they are similar. You can go to Stamford Hill in North London and see most of the men in hats and so on and that’s because that’s an enclave that wants to keep to itself. That raises questions: one, people don’t mind that, for several reasons – one is the recognition that Orthodox men don’t cause troubles. We don’t have cases of Orthodox men going out and cutting off people’s heads. If four Jewish men from Stamford Hill had blown up buses some years back there would be concern about these enclaves.

And also those enclaves are not growing. If it was the case that these enclaves were becoming areas where all the city was hat-wearing Orthodox Jews, then people would say wait, what is that? You can applaud that or abhor it, but it’s important to mention.it.

ARE: In the Netherlands, which has some of the toughest immigration policies in the world, people from certain countries are required to take “citizenship” courses before they can even enter Dutch borders. They have to learn the language, they have to learn about Dutch values, and that no, you can’t throw stones at Jews and gay people and that gay marriage is legal and women wear short dresses. Would you recommend other countries take on the Dutch policy of citizenship courses?

DKM: I make this point in the book. You say we could have done more and better, but the fundamental thing is that none of it was ever expected in the first place. No one ever thought that we would be in the situation we are now in. We didn’t expect them to stay. That’s a very big misunderstanding. Why wouldyou ask people to become Dutch citizens if you expect them to go home in five years? Why if you only expect them to stay in Britain for only 10 years? But then we realized they would stay and then we said, “we have to let them practice their own culture.” But for us to have acted as you suggest we would have had to know [at the time].

So yes, I think it’s a bare minimum for Europe to have the Dutch policy, even at this very late stage. I’m of the inclination that this is too little too late, but I wish everyone luck with it.

ARE: What about Yazidi women, Syrian Christians?

DKM: Again, it comes down to the Jewish question – because people think that every refugee is like a Jew from Nazi Germany. But if you were to think of a group that was facing an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth then yes, you’d have the Yazidis. But there are people on all sides of the Syrian civil war, which are a minority of people coming to Europe – these are people fleeing sectarian conflict, but none of them are fleeing an effort to wipe them out as a people. So the lazy view, and it is quite often pushed by Jewish groups which I think is a mistake – is to suggest that it is similar to Nazi Germany. And I wish more care were taken in this.

ARE: Is this in your mind a way of stopping radical Islam? Because so many of the radicalized Muslims are actually converts. How would it help?

DKM: We know that people who convert to anything tend to be fundamentalist. But the important thing is, if you were pliable to be converted, available to be converted, then it raises the question of what kind of Islam do we have in these countries? If it were people finding Sufism, rather than hardcore Salafism, maybe it would be different. I have a friend who is a Muslim who was on a trip some years ago who told me the story of introducing a Muslim woman to one of the senior clerics at Al-Azhar and she wouldn’t shake his hand. He asked her why not. She said, “Because I’m Muslim.” So he asked her how long she’d been a Muslim, and she said “Six years.” He said, “I’ve been a Muslim for eight decades.” And then he turned and said to his friend in Arabic, “What kind of Muslims are you making in Britain?”

ARE: One thing the American Muslim community seems to have over its European brethren is its successful integration into society. Yet at the same time, some of the worst of the radicals are in fact American-born. We have people like Linda Sarsour, who wears the mantle of feminism, but who is really a Trojan horse for the Islamists. She has said things like “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and lease any other people in authority.” What are the dangers of that kind of message?

DKM: I once spent an evening with Linda Sarsour. She is a very unpleasant, very radical girl. Filled with hate. I was the one having to defend America to Americans in an American audience against an American opponent. What she told that night was all lies, which you would tell either because you are dumb, which she isn’t, or because you want to spread propaganda, which she does.

I just think she is of a type. There are various sides to the issue that are important. There’s an “us” question and a “them” question. The “them” question is, what do people like that believe, what are they doing and how vile are they? But in a way, the “us” question is bigger. Why do we let them do this? What is wrong with America at this time in its history that an obvious demagogue like her can end up leading a feminist march [the 2017 Women’s March]? That’s an illness of America. She’s just a symptom of that.

ARE: And similarly, the Rushdie affair was effective in quashing further expression and criticism related to Islam. And Charlie Hebdo took that to an extreme. We haven’t had anything that severe, but there were the South Park threats and the attempted attack on the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland. You blame European politicians and media for failing to recognize that those who were shouting “fire” were in fact the arsonists. This seems to be a global challenge – that any criticism or critique of Islam gets shouted down as inherently bigoted. In the U.S., the Southern Poverty Law Center places Maajid Nawaz on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for criticizing some tenets of the faith and advocating modernization and reform. In Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. At the same time, though, there was certainly support for Charlie Hebdo, though you seem to deny it in your book, after the shootings. What’s the proper response to that form of a heckler’s veto?

DKM: I agree with the point. The only ways to reject the assassin’s veto is for civil society to be stronger on the question, for governments to ensure that people deemed to have ‘blasphemed’ are protected (as in the case of Rushdie) and that those who incite violence against them (such as Cat Stevens during the Rushdie affair) are the ones who find themselves on the receiving end of prosecutions. That and – obviously – ensuring that blasphemy laws aren’t allowed in through the back door via new ‘hate speech’ laws and the like.

ARE: In the chapter on multiculturalism, you describe interest groups which “were thrown up that claimed to represent and speak for all manner of identity groups.” These self-appointed voices then become the go-to groups for government. To keep the money flowing, they make the problems facing their community appear worse than they really are.” Is that a universal behavior for interest groups? We certainly see that in the U.S. with CAIR and ISNA.

DKM: Every group is vulnerable to that. With every human rights achievement, there are always some people left on the barricades. And the ones who linger on the barricades linger on without any home to go to. And you get these people who are stranded after it’s over and they have to hustle as if everything was as bad as it once was. Sometimes they are telling the truth; sometimes they wave a warning flag, but for the moment it seems particularly in America every group is claiming that this is basically 1938. It’s a tendency of every commune or group that wants awareness raised.

But it’s true, it’s especially prevalent of Muslim groups because if you keep claiming that you are the victim, then you never have to sort out your own house. And the groups that come to Europe and America, they never have to get their house in order if they spend all their time claiming they are victims of genocide and persecution and so on. And this is a familiar story.

ARE: So what would be your lesson, then, for America, especially in a book which clearly is about Europe?

DKM: Well, it is about Europe, certainly, but it’s connected to the debate America is now beginning to have. The first is to be careful with immigration. We’ve all had the same misunderstanding, the same thought that our societies are vast, immovable, unchanging things to which you could keep bringing people of every imaginable stripe and the results will always be the same. And I think that is just not the case, depending on the people who are in them. So we must take care with what kind of immigration we encourage, and at what pace, and that is something America should be thinking of, as everyone else should.

But America will have a harder time with this, because everyone in America has this vulnerability we don’t have in Europe, which is that we are all migrants. And you have the sense of ‘who am I to keep anyone out?’

ARE: I don’t think that’s the American view. I think it’s more that we all became part of this fabric, and we expect that the new immigrants will, too. But not all of them do.

DM: The whole thing actually seems to be unraveling, more than in Europe. In Europe, we don’t like to think in terms of racial terms. But all anyone in America talks about is race.

ARE: I don’t think so….

DKM: Maybe; but your vision of original sin in America seems to have become all so overwhelming. Your leading cultural figures, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, have this image of America born in terrible sin. The Atlantic’s front cover recently was all about slavery. You would get the impression that slavery only ended about 12 months ago. You are going over and over this in America – this endless sense of original sin. You are discussing reparations for slavery in 2017. You’d be hard-pressed to find publications in the UK calling for reparations to our past. Find me a mainstream publication that runs such a thing in Europe, even of WWII reparations.

So it’s symptomatic of something badly wrong at the structure of the public discussion.

ARE: Which suggests that we should do what?

DKM: What you have to listen out for is very straightforward: are the people raising such issues raising them because they want America to improve, or because they want America to end? I think this is a very central issue. Are you speaking as a critic, or as an enemy of the society in question? If you think the society can do no good, then you are speaking as an enemy. If you think there are things that have been done, that are wrong, that should be righted, campaign for them, speak out for them. Sometimes if you’re lucky you can get a posthumous rectification. But it sounds to me like a lot of this talk is from people who hate America. They don’t want to improve it. They want to end it.

So the lesson is – be careful about immigration. Be choosy. And another is a pretty straightforward one which is to work on the people who are there not to fall into the victim narratives of their special interest groups. And to focus on the “we.” I’ve always felt more optimistic for America in this regard, for the same reason I feel more optimistic than others do about France: because I think there is a very specific identity there, which it is possible to become a part of. I think it’s something other Western European countries, have not accomplished in the same way. So basically to strengthen their own identity.

ARE: Do you consider yourself a pessimist?

DKM: I think in Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. I think it would be a strange person who would look at 12,000 people landing in Lampedusa, all young men, all without jobs, all without futures, and think, ‘That’s going to go really well. These are going to be just like the Jews of Vienna. These are going to be the receptacles of our culture.’ I don’t see it happening.

The Worst Ideological Enemy of the US is Now Europe

July 20, 2017

The Worst Ideological Enemy of the US is Now Europe, Gatestone Institute, Drieu Godefridi, July 20, 2017

The vast majority of these European courts — whether the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) — in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Italy as irrelevant, and trampled the rights of the Italian state and ordinary Italians to approve who enters their country.

In Europe, Amnesty International and the like are, it seems, a new source of law.

Those who gave the Statue of Liberty to America in 1886 “to commemorate the perseverance of freedom and democracy in the United States” are willingly trampling their own people’s liberties today through courts of appointed, unelected, unaccountable ideologues. The danger is that, with the help of many doubtless well-intentioned, international NGOs, the EU will not stop at its shores.

Europe is the worst enemy of the US? You cannot be serious. Islamism, Russia, illegal immigrants… whatever, but surely not Europe! Are we not still together in NATO? Do we not conduct huge amounts of trade every day? Do we not share the same cultural roots, the same civilization, the same vision of the future? Did France not give the US her famous Statue of Liberty – “Liberty Enlightening the World?

Not anymore. In a sense, Europe looks like a continent where American Democrats have been in power for 30 years, not only in the European states, but also at the level of the European Union.

In the US, the political spectrum still spans a vast range of views between Democrats and Republicans, globalists and nationalists, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-government control and pro-individuals’ control, and pro-whatever. Even today with a president and a Supreme Court clearly on the political “Right” these divisions, and the all-important separation of powers, allow for and encourage vigorous debate. By contrast, in Europe, at the “official” level, such a spectrum of views no longer exists.

In Western Europe, politically speaking, in the press and in universities, either you are on the “Left,” or you are a pariah. If you are a pariah, you are most likely to be prosecuted for “Islamophobia”, “racism”, discrimination or some other “trumped up” charge.

There are several reasons for this imbalance. One is the difference in political maturity between Europeans and Americans. Whereas “ordinary” American voters (not just the “elites”) understand that their Supreme Court is key to ensuring that fundamental constitutional freedoms are maintained for all, the Europeans have done the opposite. In the US, the constitutional right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is derived from the people — “from the consent of the governed.”

Consequently, when Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court died, the US press wrote about him for weeks. “Ordinary citizens” in the US are deeply aware of judicial roles and their effect on judgements and legal precedents.

By contrast, in Europe, we now have two Supreme Courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg, in addition to national courts. There is, however, not one citizen in a million who can name a single judge of either the ECHR or the CJEU. The reason is that the nomination of those judges is mostly opaque, purely governmental and, in the instance of the ECHR, with no public debate. With the CJEU, appointments are also essentially governmental, with the sanction of the European Parliament, which is ideologically dominated by the Left.

In Europe, there are now two Supreme Courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg (pictured above), in addition to national courts. (Image source: Transparency International/Flickr)

The US has always welcomed immigrants, most of whom came to her shores via Ellis Island and went through a legal process for entry, led by the light of the torch of Lady Liberty. In recent years, especially since the advent of increased terrorism, the subject of illegal immigrants, migrant workers and the vetting of immigrants has become hotly debated.

By contrast, in Europe, the topic of “illegal” migrants is effectively forbidden. The continent has recently been invaded by millions of migrants — many apparently arriving under the false pretense of being refugees, even according to the United Nations.

One of the reasons is the open-door policy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who allowed over a million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany, not only without extreme vetting, but with no vetting at all.

There is, however, another, more structural cause for the current situation. In 2012, the ECHR enacted the so-called “HIRSI” ruling, named after the court case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, which states that the European states have the legal obligation to rescue migrants wherever they find them in the Mediterranean Sea — even just 200 meters away from the Libyan coast — and ferry them to the European shores, so that these people can claim the status of refugee.

When the Italian Navy intercepted illegal migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and sent them back to their point of origin, Libya, not only did the ECHR condemn Italy for this “obvious” breach of human rights; the Italians had to pay 15,000 euros ($17,000 USD) to each of these illegal migrants in the name of “moral damage”. This kind of money is equivalent to more than 10 years of income in Somalia and Eritrea (the countries of origin of Mr. Hirsi Jamaa and his companions). In 2016, Somalia’s GDP per capita was an estimated $400 USD; Eritrea’s $1,300.

Everyone, of course, heard about the HIRSI ruling. In Africa, especially, many understood that if they could reach the Mediterranean, Europe’s navies would now be obliged to ferry them directly to Europe. Before the HIRSI ruling, when people tried to reach the shores of Europe, hundreds every year tragically died at sea. After HIRSI, the objective is now simply to be intercepted. Consequently, hundreds of thousands attempt this journey — often with the help of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Médecins Sans Frontières, whose activists wait for boats to appear at sea, just off the Libyan coast. We therefore presently have 5,000 unintercepted people dying at sea every year.

While Italy is “drowning” in refugees, Austria has deployed armored vehicles close to its border with Italy, to stop more migrants from coming north.

The vast majority of these European courts — whether the ECHR or the CJEU — in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Italy as irrelevant, and trampled the rights of the Italian state and ordinary Italians to approve who enters their country.

Americans would do well to read the HIRSI decision; it is rather short and a perfect summary of current European jurisprudence. They will find that the ECHR does not hesitate to accept NGOs as an authoritative part of the process; the ECHR even quotes their statements as if fact or law. In Europe, Amnesty International and the like are, it appears, a new source of law.

The European people, of course, still share the common values of Western civilization. The “Visegrad Group” of countries in Central Europe, for instance — the Czech RepublicHungaryPoland and Slovakia — do not accept the German diktat to relocate Muslim refugees. Parts of Western Europe, such as the northern Flemish-speaking part of Belgium, are also pretty tired of the whole European mess, and Merkel will not embody the leadership of Germany forever.

Americans, therefore, would do well to understand that for the time being the “Cultural Left” is so deeply entrenched in Western Europe and the EU, that their worst ideological enemy is not the Middle East or Russia: it is Europe.

Those who gave the Statue of Liberty to America in 1886 “to commemorate the perseverance of freedom and democracy in the United States” are willingly trampling their own people’s liberties today through courts of appointed, unelected, unaccountable ideologues. The danger is, with the help of many, doubtless well-intentioned, international NGOs, the EU will not stop at its shores.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.