The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals a deep underlying moral and demographic weakness. The symptoms of the malaise are apparent in the unprecedented demographic collapse and in the loss of a sense of place and history that go hand-in-hand with the expansion of the European Union.
The emerging transnational hyper-state is actively indoctrinating its subject-population into believing and accepting that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim aliens is actually a blessing that enriches the Old Continent’s culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. Europe is losing the ability to define and defend itself, to the benefit of unassimilable multitudes filled with contempt for the host-society.
Many Muslims in Europe already consider themselves de facto autonomous, a community of believers opposed to the broader society of infidels. Jihadist networks now exist in every country west of the former Iron Curtain save Iceland. They are centered on mosques and Islamic centers often financed by Saudi money. Muslim population of Europe, which stands at some 20 million as of this writing, will double by 2025 and at that time it will account for a third of all live births in the “Old Europe” (the 15-nation core of the European Union).
Most Muslims in Europe live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country. Their mindset has nothing but contempt for the liberal concept of “tolerance” and “diversity,” and they possess a disdainful and hostile attitude to the host-society. Such hostility is clearly manifested in hard-core anti-Semitism – in its raw, unadulterated variety that is repugnant to most Europeans but regarded as normal, legitimate, and divinely ordained by most Muslims. But since the dictum of the multiculturalist ruling elite is that Islam is peaceful, tolerant, and as European as the Sistine Chapel, the truth must not be spoken.
In 2002, the European Union initiated a study on anti-Semitism in its member-countries. When the report was completed in February 2003, however, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided not to publish the 112-page study. Its finding that Muslims were major perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts in the EU was judged “inflammatory.” The EUMC board member for Denmark, for instance, said the study was “unsatisfactory” and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment and that this should be addressed too. The Danish border member clearly ignored the fact that in the previous two years the EUMC had published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe.
Eventually another group, the Vienna-based Center for Research of Anti-Semitism, released the study which showed that there are “an increasing number of anti-Semitic attacks, committed frequently by young Arabs/Muslims in most EU member countries.” In the sample month (May 15-June 15, 2002), the study found that physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts “often committed by young Muslim perpetrators.” Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hate speech and verbal abuse. France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK in particular, witnessed numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). In these countries, the violent attacks on Jews and/or synagogues were reported to be committed often by members of the Muslim-Arab minority, frequently youths.
That anti-Semitic offenders in some cases are drawn from Muslim minorities in Europe – whether they be radical Islamist groups or young males of North African descent – is certainly a new development for most [EU] Member States, one that offers reason for concern for European governments and also the great majority of its citizens.
The European Union hated this, and the EUMC came up with a revised version of the suppressed Report the following year, this time with the transparent objective of shifting the blame for anti-Semitic incidents away from the main culprits. Beate Winkler, director of the EUMC, thus told the European Parliament in Strasbourg that the most common perpetrator “appears to be young, disaffected white European, often stimulated by extreme right wing groups.” Young Muslims were relegated to “a further source of antisemitism in some countries,” with “antisemitic groups on the extreme right” allegedly playing a part even in stirring up Muslim opinion.
This oral summary by Ms. Winkler in fact contradicted the findings of the report she had just presented to the European Parliament. Furthermore, Victor Weitzel, co-author of the accompanying report on Jewish perceptions of anti-Semitism in the EU, complained that the EUMC exerted great pressure to play down the role of Islamic anti-Semitism in the attacks: “Everything is being tilted to ensure nice soft conclusions.”
The term “Islamic anti-Semitism” may sound illogical as both Jews and Arabs are supposedly of the same or racially similar Semitic stock, but “anti-Semitism” was never meant to brand all Semitic peoples in the same category. It has always denoted, and was meant to denote, different types and degrees of animosity to the Jews. It has found a perfect fit in Islam, where scriptural odium is fully coupled with anti-Jewish attitudes on ethnic and geopolitical grounds. And yet the existence and implications of Islamic anti-Semitism are denied by Europe’s Islamophile elite class. The utopian character of the denial is anchored in the myth of an Islamic golden age of tolerance, “inclusive and cosmopolitan, cosmopolitan here meaning an ease with different cultures: still so rare and threatened a value in the new millennium as in centuries past.”
The situational morality of the Western elite class demands that no phenomena be judged as such. They don’t treat “anti-Semitism” as a function of objective behavior but in accordance with the place of the actor within the ideological system. In this scheme of things, anti-Semitism — including hard-core Holocaust denial — is a grave sin, except when practiced by a protected group sanctified by its anti-Western otherness, i.e. by Muslim immigrants and their Western-born offspring.
The roots of this scandal may be traced to the E.U. Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on “the contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture.” A decade later, in its General policy recommendation n° 5: Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasized “Islam’s positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part.” It expressed concern “at signs that religious intolerance towards Islam” and expressed strong regret “that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat.” The Commission warned that “this prejudice may manifest itself in different guises, in particular through negative general attitudes.” It then came to the point, and called on the E.U. member states to adopt measures that would effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim “affirmative action” that would far exceed some of the worst excesses of similar programs in the United States.
E.U. Commission Against Racism And Intolerance: recommendations to member states:
• ensure that Muslim communities are not discriminated against as to the circumstances in which they organize and practice their religion;
• impose sanctions in cases of discrimination on grounds of religion;
• remove “unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles to the construction of sufficient numbers of appropriate places of worship for the practice of Islam”;
• ensure that public institutions make provision in their everyday practice for cultural and other requirements of the Muslim community;
• prevent discrimination on religious grounds regarding access to citizenship;
• eliminate any discrimination on grounds religion in access to education;
• legislate against religious discrimination in employment and at the workplace;
• encourage employers to devise and implement “codes of conduct” to combat religious discrimination and “to work towards the goal of workplaces representative of the diversity of the society in question” (i.e. apply affirmative action for Muslims);
• prevent Muslims’ “discrimination connected with social exclusion”;
• pay special attention to the situation of Muslim women who may suffer both from discrimination against women in general and that against Muslims;
• modify curricula to prevent “distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history” and “portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace”;
• ensure that religious instruction in schools respects cultural pluralism and make provision for teacher training to this effect;
• interact with local Muslim communities to facilitate their selection of Imams;
• raise awareness among the population of those areas where particular care is needed to avoid social and cultural conflict;
• encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias;
• provide for the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of all measures to combat intolerance and discrimination against Muslims.
The diligence with which individual E.U. member countries translate this appalling list into national legislation, and the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Union, are being tracked by the Vienna-based European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia – the same institution that has doctored its own data on anti-Semitism – and summarized in its reports such as Islamophobia in the Member States of the European Union (May 2002).
In recent years, a notable trend in the Monitoring Center’s documents is to include “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” under the same heading, with the definition of “Islamophobia” so broad as to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. The implication that Islamophobia thus defined and anti-Semitism are equally repulsive and deserving of similar legal sanction is a regular feature of the EU race relations industry output. It also routinely refers to “institutional Islamophobia” as an inherent social and cultural sickness of most European societies that needs to be rooted out by education, re-education, and legislation.
Such posture plays right into the hands of Islamic activists, the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and a host of similar governmental bodies. Also, NGOs all over the EU have a symbiotic relationship with the jihadist fifth column. The rampant insanity emanating from Brussels grows more unrestrained with each new attack, resulting in calls for more understanding of the “underlying causes” of terrorism (racism, Iraq, poverty etc.) and the insistence on greater inclusiveness and more stringent anti-Islamophobic legislation.
An ideological commitment to neoliberal globalization has turned multiculturalism and effectively open-ended Third World (overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration into two inviolable Euro-givens. The result is the inherent inability of Brussels to defend Europe from the threat of a resurgent and aggressive Islam, and to prevent the resurgence of anti-Semitism within its boundaries. Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just as bad as jihad’s fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and facilitators.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.