.

.

POSTS BY SUBJECT

POSTS BY SUBJECT

''ESTONIA'' (15) "Hindenburg" (2) “Yom Kippur” War (1) 2017 Westminster attack (1) 20th_Century (3) 7/7 London bombings (38) 911 (392) A.H.M. RAMSAY (2) Abu Ghraib (1) ADL (2) ADOLF_HITLER (23) ADVENTURE (1) Affirmative Action (1) Afghanistan (7) AFRICA (47) African Origins (1) Agriculture (3) AIDS (25) Al Azhar University (1) Alain de Benoist (15) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (34) Alois Irlmaier (1) AMAZONIA (3) America (4) American Islamization (21) American Universities (2) American_Indian (1) Ancient Egypt (1) ANCIENT_CIVILISATIONS (2) Angels (1) Animal_Rights (6) ANTEDILUVIAN_CIVILISATION (15) Anthony Blunt (1) Anthony Ludovici (3) ANTHROPOLOGY (7) Anti-Semitism (3) anti-White (1) Antifa (3) Apartheid (1) AR. LEESE (4) ARCHAEOLOGY (3) Argentina (1) Armenia (4) Armenian Genocide (1) Art (15) Arthur Koestler (1) Astronomy (30) ATHEISM (1) AUSTRALIA (2) AUSTRIA (1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali (3) Baha'i faith (1) BALI (1) Balkans (4) Bangladesh (2) banned_weapons (1) Barbarossa (2) Barcelona Attack (1) BELGIUM (2) Benjamin Freedman (1) BENJAMIN SOLARI PARRAVICINI (11) Beslan (1) Bill Clinton (1) Biological Warfare (2) Black America (2) BLACK RACE (14) BLOOD PASSOVER (12) BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION (16) Book purge (1) Boycottage (1) Brainwashing (1) BRAZIL (1) BREXIT (1) Brigitte Gabriel (1) British politics (1) Buddhism (5) California (1) Cambodia (8) CANADA (10) CANCER (40) Carolina bays (1) Celebrities-Show Business (3) Cell Phone towers (6) Censorship in Europe (7) Central Europe (1) CENTRAL_ASIA (1) Central/South America (1) Ch. Bollyn (30) Charles Tart (8) Charlie Hebdo (1) Che Guevara (2) CHEMTRAILS (13) CHINA (6) Christian Zionism (1) CHRISTIANISM (46) CHRISTIANISM in EUROPE (1) Churchill (7) CINEMA (2) Circumcision (10) CLIMATE (7) Climate Change (8) cluster bombs/mines (2) Cold Fusion (1) COLD_FUSION (1) COLONIALISM (1) Colonization of Europe (32) Commerce (1) Communism (49) CONGO (5) Consciousness (9) Conspiracies (8) Consumerism (1) contemporary society (11) COPTS (1) Cosmogony (1) Crime (5) Criminal_Sciense (1) CRIMINALITY (2) crop circles (5) CUBA (16) Cultural Marxism (8) DARFUR (3) Dead Sea Scrolls (1) Death penalty in ISLAM (1) Death-Bed Visions (1) DECADANT_ART (1) Deir Yassin (8) Democracy (1) DENMARK (4) Depleted uranium (6) DIAMOND CARTELS (1) DIANA (10) DIETRICH ECKART (1) DILUVIUM (5) Disney (2) DOGS (1) Donald TRUMP (7) Dönmeh (1) Doppelgangers (1) Dresden (6) DRUG ADDICTION (1) E.U. (12) Eastern Europe (2) ECHELON (1) ECONOMY (14) EDUCATION (4) Egypt (11) Eisenhower (4) El Inglés (2) Elie Wiesel (1) Elite_Child_Sex_Rings (16) Elizabeth Taylor (1) ENERGY (9) Enoch Powell (1) environmentalism (10) Ernst Zundel (1) EUROPE viz. ISLAM (12) EUROPE's FUTURE (15) European Parliament (1) EUROPEAN UNION (11) EUROPEAN_IDENTITY (4) Eustace Mullins (10) Evidence for the Afterlife (2) EVOLUTION (9) EXPLORATIONS (1) Ezra Pound (1) Facebook (1) FALSE_HISTORY (2) Fascism (4) Fashion industry (1) FATIMA (9) Female Genital Mutilation (2) FEMINISM (17) FINLAND (2) Fjordman (7) Flight 007 (1) Fluoride (1) Food (11) FRANCE (32) FRANCE viz. ISLAM (5) Francis P. Yockey (5) Frankfurt School (2) Franklin D. Roosevelt (6) freedom of speech (1) Fukushima (2) G7 (1) Gas chambers (1) gay marriage (1) Gaza (1) Geert Wilders (10) GENDERISM (1) genetically modified organisms (GMO) (8) Georges Bensoussan (2) German National Socialism (14) GERMANY (46) GERMANY viz. ISLAM (4) Gilad Atzmon (11) Global warming (2) Globalism (5) Great Britain (60) Great Pyramid (16) GREECE (2) GREENPEACE (3) Guatemala (1) Guillaume Faye (1) Gulag (3) Gulf War (1) Gulf War Syndrome (1) Gun control (1) Guylaine Lanctot (2) HAARP (10) Hans Günther (8) Harry Potter (1) HEALTH (114) HEMP (1) Henry Makow (2) Hidden History (15) HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES (1) Hiroshima (5) Historical Review (67) History_of_IDEAS (3) HMS Hampshire (3) Hollow Earth (22) Hollywood (11) Holocaust (140) HOLODOMOR_1932-33 (17) Homosexuality (6) Horst Mahler (4) Howard Hughes (1) Human Equality (1) HUMAN_ORIGINS (2) HUMAN_RIGHTS (2) Humanitarian politics (1) Humorous (2) HUNGARY (2) HYPERBOREA (7) IAN STEVENSON (13) ICELAND (1) Image of Guadalupe (2) Immigration (21) IMPORTANT (5) INDIA (24) IndoEuropean (12) Indonesia (4) INFECTIOUS DISEASES EPIDEMICS (1) Infrasound Weapons (1) Intellectual_freedom (1) Intelligence (19) Intelligent design (8) International Criminal Tribunal (3) INTERNET (2) INTERRACIAL_RELATIONS (1) INTIMIDATION (4) INVENTIONS (3) IQ (3) IRAN (11) Iranian regime violence (1) IRAQ (22) IRAQ_war (11) IRELAND (2) ISLAM (331) Islam in Europe/America (93) ISLAM in RUSSIA (1) ISLAM propagandists (4) ISLAMIST INTIMIDATION (26) ISLAMIST_VIOLENCE (41) ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE (78) Islamophobia (6) ISRAEL (129) Israel Supreme Court (1) ISRAEL-ARAB RELATIONS (10) ISRAEL's_ATOMIC_BOMB (4) ISRAEL/EU RELATIONS (1) ITALY (7) J.Kaminski (4) Japan (2) Jewish History (1) Jewish Question (1) JEWS (117) JEWS in GERMANY (1) JEWS/ISRAEL-USA_relations (53) JFK Assassination (28) JFK/RFK (2) Jihad (15) Jo Cox (6) Joe Sobran (4) John Bryant (17) John Lear (3) Journalists (2) Julius Evola (38) Jyllands-Posten newspaper (1) Kafirs (1) Karl Marx (1) Katie King (1) Katyn (11) Kennedys (1) KENYA (1) Kevin MacDonald (38) KHAZARs (1) Knut Hamsun (1) Kurdistan (2) KURDS (2) Lasha Darkmoon (13) Laurel Canyon (4) Layla Anwar (4) LEBANON (3) LEFT (18) Liberalism (1) Lord Kitchener (4) Lord Northcliff (1) Lost Civilisations (2) Lost Technology (1) LYDDA (1) MADELEINE McCANN (4) Magic (1) Magnesium (7) Mahathir (1) Mahatma Gandhi (4) Malaysia (2) Manchester Terror Attack (1) Manchester terrorist attack (11) Manipulation (70) MAPS (1) Mark Weber (10) Mass immigration_Multiculturalism (39) Mass_Media (5) Mass-Psychology (3) Massacres (1) May-June 2017 London Jihadist attacks (4) Medjugorje apparitions (3) METEMPSYCHOSIS (17) MEXICO (1) MH370 (2) MIDDLE EAST (45) Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (11) MIND CONTROL (26) MONEY-Banking (8) Monsanto (9) Morality (1) Mormonism (1) Mortacracy (6) MULTICULTURALISM (5) MUSIC MAFIA (2) Muslim Brotherhood (5) Muslim Honor Killings (1) Muslim Persecution of Christians (2) MUSLIMS IN EUROPE (72) Mussolini (3) Mysterious (69) Mysterious_SKY (1) Nathuram Godse (3) National Memorial and Arboretum (1) Native Americans (1) Neapolis (1) NESSIE (17) Netherlands (10) New World Order (4) NEW_ZEALAND (1) NGOs (3) Nicolai Sennels (1) no-go zones (2) NOAM CHOMSKY (4) Nonie Darwish (13) North Africa (3) NORWAY (2) Norway massacre (5) NUCLEAR (12) Nutrition (20) Obama (2) Occult Symbols (21) Oklahoma City bombing (7) OLYMPIC_GAMES (13) OPINION (9) Orel_Yiftachel (5) Organized Jewry (11) P. Buchanan (26) PACIFISM (1) PAEDOPHILIA (15) Paganism (2) PAKISTAN (2) PALESTINE 1944-1948 (1) Palestinians (19) PARIS (1) Patrice Lumumba (1) PATRICIA HEARST (2) Patton (2) Paul Craig Roberts (1) Paul Weston (9) PEARL HARBOR (1) Persecuted Christians (7) PERSONALITIES (1) Philosophy of Civilization (1) Photographic_Archive (1) Photography (2) Physics (9) POLAND (5) POLAR REGIONS (30) Poliomyelitis (8) Political Thought (52) Pollution (3) Polynesia (25) Pope Benedict (1) Popular Culture (2) POPULATION FORECAST (2) Pornography (2) PORTUGAL (6) PREHISTORY (28) propaganda (5) Prophecies (14) Psychedelics (66) PSYCHIATRY (10) Psychical Research (124) Psychology (6) QATAR (3) Qater-France Relations (1) QUEBEC (1) Queen Victoria (1) R.R.Rife (10) Race (131) RACE MIXING (1) Racism (5) RAPE statistics (1) RED_Alert (4) Religion (27) René Guénon (1) Revilo Oliver (16) Richard Dawkins (1) Riyadh address to the Muslim world (1) Robert Faurisson (1) Rockefellers (1) Roger Garaudy (6) Roman Catholic Church (12) Ron Paul (7) Rudolph Hess (1) Ruling_by_CORRUPTION (14) RUSSIA (8) RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1) RWANDA (31) S. H. Pearson (1) Sabra-Shatila massacre (10) Sandy Hook (1) Sanskrit (1) SAUDI ARABIA (6) Savitri Devi (27) Scandinavia (1) SCIENCE (45) Secret Military Technology (14) Secret weapons (10) Sedition Trial (1) SERBIA (1) sexual freedom (6) Sexualization of Culture (6) Sinister sites (11) Skepticism (1) Slave trade (1) SOUTH AFRICA (10) Space/Apollo_Hoax (54) SPAIN (5) Spanish Civil War (1) Spengler (6) Spirituality (1) Srebrenica (1) STALINISM (1) State_criminality (8) Steganography (16) Steven Yates (7) STRANGE SOUNDS (4) Subterranean_world (10) SUDAN (2) SUPERNATURAL (16) Surveillance (1) SWASTIKA (33) Swaziland (1) SWEDEN (16) Switzerland (1) SYRIA (8) Taj Mahal (13) Ted Kaczynski (1) Terrorism (44) TESLA (6) The 1001 Club (1) The Celts (1) The Cultural Integration Initiative (1) THE END OF WHITE RACE (21) The Great Flood (8) The Irish Savant (9) The Mass Rape of German Women by the Red Army (1) The Nuremberg Trials (5) The plutonium injections (4) the Wealth of Nations (2) Theo van Gogh (1) Thought of the Right (63) Thought-control (3) TITANIC (72) Tommy Robinson (1) Torture (1) Tradition (5) Transatlantic Slave Trade (1) Transcendent Experience (6) TRUMP _Administration (1) Tunguska (1) Tunisia (2) TURKEY (8) TWA flight 800 (1) U.S.A. (143) U.S.A. ARMY CRIMINALITY (18) U.S.A. Foreign policy (14) U.S.A. Military (2) U.S.A._EDUCATION (1) U.S.A._HISTORY (2) U.S.A._POLITICS (14) U.S.A._SOCIETY (10) U.S.A.-CIA (13) U.S.A.-Power Structure (9) U.S.S. Liberty (8) UFOs (166) Ukraine (15) United Church of Christ (1) United Nations (3) UNKNOWN_EARTH (2) USA (3) USA_Press (2) USA/USSR_relations (2) USS San Francisco (1) USSR (55) Vaccination (1) VATICAN (12) Vatican II (3) VELIKOVSKY (2) Vernon Coleman (14) Voynich_manuscript (15) WAFA SULTAN (1) War Crimes (36) water (2) Wayne MADSEN (2) WEST (16) WEST viz. ISLAM (11) WEST/ISLAM Relations (23) Western Masochism (1) WESTERN_ELITES (5) White Guilt (1) White phosphorous (1) White Race (8) WILD_LIFE (1) Wilhelm Reich (4) William Gough (10) wind farms (1) Wm F. Koch (8) Women in Islam (9) World Wildlife Fund (8) WORLD_ORDER (57) WWI (6) WWII (98) WWII Aftermath (42) WWIII (1) Younger Dryas Ice Age (4) Yugoslavia (8) Zimbabwe (1) ZIONISM (12)

Monday, September 18, 2017

Ruthie Blum : What Happened to the ADL?


In the months leading up to the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, a former director of the World Jewish Congress decried the direction in which the new head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was taking the international human rights group.
In a series of columns, Isi Leibler -- a prominent Australian Israeli -- blasted ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, for turning the 100-year-old organization, whose mission is to monitor and expose anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, into a platform that "represents an echo chamber of left-wing Democratic politics."

Leibler first took issue with Greenblatt's April 2016 address to the far-Left Jewish organization J Street, backed by anti-Israel billionaire George Soros.
Leibler wrote that Greenblatt "incorporated [in his speech] criticisms of Israel that were thoroughly inappropriate...[and] indirectly gave a seal of approval for the Obama administration to impose solutions on future borders that could dramatically compromise Israel's security."

Ironically, Greenblatt's rebuttal, in the form of a letter to the editor of The Jerusalem Post, illustrated Leibler's point. He not only defended J Street, referring to the people in the audience as "a group of deeply thoughtful college students whose commitment to Israel is genuine and whose passion on the issues is impressive;" he claimed that he had not been morally equating Israel and the Palestinians.


Columnist Isi Leibler blasted Jonathan Greenblatt (pictured above), CEO of the Anti-Defamation League and a former adviser to President Obama, for turning the 100-year-old organization, whose mission is to monitor and expose anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, into a platform that "represents an echo chamber of left-wing Democratic politics." (Image source: Erik Hersman/Flickr)

In a subsequent piece, Leibler called Greenblatt to task for having "lost the plot, behaving as though he remained employed by the Obama administration." Leibler cited the ADL's July 13, 2016 statement "welcoming the Republican Party platform on Israel," but expressing "disappoint[ment] that the platform draft departs from longstanding support of a two-state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict... the only viable way to secure Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state."
Leibler wrote:
"One can disagree about a two-state policy, but for an American Jewish organization which must remain bipartisan and should be concentrating on anti-Semitism to issue such a statement breaches all conventions. It is totally beyond the ADL's mandate to involve itself in such partisan political issues."
Yet this is just what Greenblatt did. In a September 13, 2016 article in the journal Foreign Policy, he contested a video clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointing to the Palestinian Authority's outright refusal to have even a single Jew reside within the boundaries of a future Palestinian state. In the piece, titled "Sorry, Bibi, the Palestinians are not 'ethnic cleansing' Jewish settlers," Greenblatt wrote that Netanyahu "chose to raise an inappropriate straw man regarding Palestinian policy toward Israeli settlements."

Far more questionable, however, has been the ADL's support for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement -- a group established in 2013 to counter police brutality against African Americans, but that quickly mushroomed into a full-fledged "intersectional" anti-American, anti-white, anti-Israel, pro-radical Palestinian organization.

About this, too, Greenblatt made what critics claim is a convoluted statement -- saying that the ADL has no "official relationship with the body of activists who claim membership in this effort," and attributing its "anti-Israel — and at times anti-Semitic — positions" to a "small minority of leaders within the Black Lives Matter movement."

In November 2016, during his opening remarks at the ADL's "Never Is Now" conference in New York City, Greenblatt responded to a Fox News interview with a pro-Trump PAC spokesman citing World War II-era Japanese internment camps -- when discussing possible ways to keep tabs on terrorists in the U.S. -- by announcing:
"I pledge to you that because I am committed to the fight against anti-Semitism that if one day Muslim Americans are forced to register their identities, that is the day that this proud Jew will register as Muslim."
After U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration in January 2017, the ADL "unambiguously condemned" his proposed executive order on immigration and refugees. Greenblatt stated:
"History will look back on this order as a sad moment in American History – the time when the president turned his back on people fleeing for their lives. This will effectively shut America's doors to the most vulnerable people in the world who seek refuge from unspeakable pain and suffering... [such as] the Sunni family whose son languishes in prison in Iran... [and] LGBT youth in Yemen terrorized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity...Yes, we need strict screening but our current system is sufficient in keeping America safe... More than most, our community knows what happens when the doors to freedom are shut. That is why ADL relentlessly will fight this policy in the weeks and months to come. Our history and heritage compel us to take a stand."
In other words, Trump had barely entered the White House before Greenblatt "took a stand" against him -- one that had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, to boot. This was not surprising. A month earlier, in an address to the Knesset (Israel's parliament) in Jerusalem, he said he was worried about what the future would hold with Trump at the helm of his country:
"[P]erhaps more so than any moment in modern memory, we truly do not know what the president-elect will do when he becomes the 45th person to occupy the Oval Office. I would be remiss if I did not share with you the very deep sense of concern shared by many in the American Jewish community in this moment of uncertainty. And there is legitimate cause for concern."
Greenblatt went on to lodge a not-so-veiled accusation against Trump for the resurgence of anti-Semitism in the United States, comparing it to 1930s Germany and going so far as to say that "one of the main cheerleaders of [the Alt-Right] movement will be sitting in the West Wing, literally down the hall from the Oval Office." Without naming names, Greenblatt was apparently referring to Steve Bannon.

Greenblatt's openness about his political views was to be expected. When it was announced in November 2014 that he would be replacing long-time ADL director Abraham L. Foxman after his retirement in July 2015, Jews on all sides of the political spectrum called the move a "dramatic shift." This was not merely due to the difference in age and stage between the two men -- Foxman was the child of Holocaust survivors and Greenblatt a second-generation, tech-savvy social activist -- but because Foxman, although himself a liberal, was a staunch defender of Israel against Palestinian anti-Semitism, while Greenblatt's support for the Jewish state has been more conditional on the policies of the Netanyahu government.

In the aftermath of the August 12, 2017 "Unite the Right" demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia -- during which a white supremacist murdered a young woman and wounded many other people in a car-ramming attack -- the ADL joined all other Jewish organizations in condemning the anti-Semitism on display. Although the event was held to protest the imminent removal of a statue of Civil War Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, it quickly escalated into an altercation between Ku Klux Klan members shouting anti-Semitic slogans and left-wing radicals from the Antifa ("anti-fascist") movement.

When Trump responded by condemning "all sides," rather than denouncing the far-right anti-Semites, the ADL was not alone in criticizing him for it. Greenblatt's attack, however, was not simply harsh; it was also a defense of Antifa.

"President Trump went beyond the pale today in equating racist white supremacists in Charlottesville with counter protesters who were there to stand up against hate," he said. Yet Antifa is a radical organization that employs violence as a tactic, and also contains a strong anti-Zionist component.

Trump's mentioning of "all sides," then, may have been an error of judgment, given the explosive political and cultural climate, but -- as has become evident with the emerging of more details about Charlottesville and subsequent demonstrations -- it was tragically true.

Furthermore, even after Trump issued a clear condemnation two days later of "criminals and thugs, including KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups," Greenblatt was not satisfied.

"Let's be clear: I think we should expect a leader in the highest office in the land to step above the lowest possible bar," he said. "We need to move from words to real action." Then, as he had done during his Knesset address, he proceeded to imply that certain White House staff members were on the side of the white supremacists. "Individuals who are associated with, for example, the alt-right found their way into positions of authority in the West Wing."

Greenblatt's partisanship seems to have paid off, and not only figuratively. Immediately after the events in Charlottesville and the outcry over Trump's initial reaction to them, major companies began announcing massive donations to the ADL and another NGO, the left-wing, anti-Trump Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

As of the time of this writing, JP Morgan, Apple, and the George and Amal Clooney Foundation for Justice had pledged $1 million to the ADL and the SPLC each or together -- and, rebuking Trump, 21st Century Fox said it, too, would be contributing $1 million to the ADL, while urging others to do the same. JP Morgan and Apple also initiated a two-for-one match for employee donations to those organizations.

Separately, the ADL reported a 1,000% increase in online donations since August 13, a day after the Charlottesville rally. It is interesting to note that just over two weeks later, Greenblatt announced the creation of a new position at the ADL and hired George Selim -- an Arab-American former official at the Department of Homeland Security who worked under Presidents George W. Bush, Obama and Trump -- to fill it. Selim, whose past meetings with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups is "raising concerns" about this role, will lead the organization's education, law enforcement and community security programs, and oversee its Center on Extremism, according to Greenblatt.

It is certainly the right of individuals, foundations and private companies to contribute to causes they deem worthy. It is forbidden, however, for NGOs listed by Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(3) organizations -- charities -- to engage in political activity on behalf of or against candidates for or in public office. According to the IRS Code, "Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

The ADL and the SPLC currently enjoy tax-exempt status. Unlike the SPLC, however, which has irked even many liberals for its exaggeration of hate-crime statistics to keep itself relevant and handsomely funded -- and whose reputation was damaged over the recent discovery that it has been funneling millions of dollars to offshore accounts -- the ADL is a widely respected, influential group in the Jewish world and among international human rights circles.

If, as Leibler suggested, the ADL has "lost the plot" under Greenblatt, it deserves to lose its tax-exempt status. Although this is not likely to happen, the ADL board nevertheless must step in to curb Greenblatt's political activism and restore the organization's reputation as a serious anti-Semitism watchdog. In the meantime, potential donors to the ADL need to ask themselves to what use their money will be put.
Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"

Giulio Meotti : Germany: The Rise of Islam

  • Turkey controls 900 mosques in Germany and feels free to say that a "liberal mosque" in Germany is "incompatible" with Islam.
  • Can you imagine Germany offering Iraq, Syria and Egypt to build "200 new churches" to reconstruct the derelict and dispossessed Christian communities there? No, because in the Middle East, Christians have been eradicated in a forced de-Christianization.
  • Christians in Germany will become a minority in the next 20 years, according to Die Welt.
  • We risk losing not only our churches, but more importantly, our cultural strength and even confidence in the values of our own civilization.
Jan Fleischhauer, a journalist of the weekly magazine Der Spiegel, coined an expression to define the free fall of German Christianity: Selbstsäkularisierung ("self-secularization"). It is the Church being liquidated?

The German Bishops' Conference just released the data on the decline of Catholicism in Germany for 2016. In one year, the German Catholic Church lost 162,093 faithful and closed 537 parishes. From 1996 to today, one quarter of the Catholic communities have been closed. 

"The faith has evaporated," said Cardinal Friedrich Wetter, the Archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1982 to 2007.

Christians in Germany will become a minority in the next 20 years, according to Die Welt. Around 60% of the country is currently Christian, with 24 million Catholics and 23 million Protestants. But that number is falling by 500,000 a year through deaths alone. "Those statistics are embodied by what visitors observe in German cities on Sunday: largely empty churches", the Catholic theologian George Weigel wrote.

German Protestantism is facing the same crisis. Die Zeit revealed that in 2016, 340,000 Protestants passed away, and there were just 180,000 baptisms. Some 190,000 people left the church and just 25,000 people chose to join it.

In his most famous lecture, Pope Benedict XVI famously said that the West, including those who do not accept transcendence, should act "etsi Deus daretur", as if God does exist. The old-fashioned Christian society will never come back, but it is critical for even a secular West to stay based on -- and profoundly inspired by -- its Judeo-Christian values.

The next stage seems to be a German cultural and religious landscape dominated by atheists and two minority religions: Islam and Christianity. If the secularists do not take Western Christian heritage -- or at least the Judeo-Christian values from which it sprang -- more seriously and start defending it, both atheists and Christians will soon be dominated by the rising political and supremacist religion, Islam.

 A prominent Muslim fundamentalist organization in Germany, banned by the federal government, calls itself "The True Religion" ("Die Wahre Religion"). They apparently think they are overtaking Judeo-Christian values.

There are dramatic instances of Christian decay in Germany. In the diocese of Trier, for example, site of the oldest Catholic community and the birthplace of Karl Marx, the number of parishes will drop from 903 to 35 by 2020, according to bishop Stephan Ackermann -- a decrease of more than 90%.

In the diocese of Essen, more than 200 parishes have been closed; their number has fallen from 259 to 43.

A demographic decline is also involved in this religious crisis. "Christianity is literally dying in Europe," said Conrad Hackett, head of the researchers who drafted a Pew Forum report a few months ago. In Europe, between 2010 and 2015, Christian deaths outnumbered births by nearly 6 million. In Germany alone, there were about 1.4 million more Christian deaths.

This decline also apparent from the recruitment crisis for the priesthood. The official website of the German Catholic Church, noted in May that the dioceses of Osnabrück and Mainz did not receive any new priests this year. 
The archdiocese of Munich last year drew only one candidate. Throughout the Archdiocese of Munich today, there are only 37 seminarians in the various training stages, for about 1.7 million Catholics. 
In comparison, the American diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, currently has 49 seminarians for about 96,000 Catholics. In the U.S., Christianity is strong; in Germany it is literally dying.

A German architect, Joaquim Reinig, told Die Tageszeitung that to integrate Muslim immigrants better, churches should be demolished and replaced with "highly visible mosques". It might sound a bit crazy, but it contains a dramatic truth. In his book The Last Days of Europe, the historian Walter Laqueur wrote that "Germany had some 700 little mosques and prayer rooms in the 1980s, but there are more than 2,500 at the present time". If, in Germany, Christianity is evaporating, Islam is proliferating.

The Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB) just opened a new mega-mosque for worship in the German city of Cologne. The new German mega-mosque has a 1,200-person capacity and the tallest minaret of Europe.

According to Deutsche Welle, "Christian leaders bristled at the idea of Cologne's famed Dom cathedral sharing the skyline with minarets". When the mosque was planned in 2007, a citizens' initiative was launched to say that "we want the cathedral here, not minarets". The Muslim authorities then announced the plan to "double" the number of mosques.


The new mega-mosque in Cologne, Germany has a 1,200-person capacity and the tallest minaret of Europe. (Image source: Raimond Spekking/Wikimedia Commons)


The Turkish authorities not only wanted to build a mega-mosque in the city hosting the largest cathedral of Germany, but these also had the sense of irony to commission architect Paul Böhm to design the mosque. Böhm's father and grandfather were in fact the two most radical and admired church architects of their generations. In the "new Germany", nobody had asked Böhm to design a new cathedral.

Since he took power in Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has built 17,000 Islamic prayer sites there. The Turkish president is committed to the construction of mosques in European capitals as well. Turkey controls 900 mosques in Germany and feels free to say that a "liberal mosque" in Germany is "incompatible" with Islam, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. That is why the 57 percent of Germans fear the rise of Islam in their country.

When Chancellor Angela Merkel opened her country to mass migration in 2014, she apparently did not see any cultural problem in accepting more than another million Muslims.

In the words of Erdogan, however, "Our minarets are our bayonets, our domes are our helmets, our mosques are our barracks". Islamic regimes are, in fact, offering to fill the empty spaces in Germany's religious landscape. Saudi Arabia proposed building 200 new mosques in Germany, "one for every 100 refugees".

Can you imagine Germany offering Iraq, Syria and Egypt to build "200 new churches" to reconstruct the derelict and dispossessed Christian communities there? 
No, because in the Middle East, Christians have been eradicated in a forced de-Christianization. 
In Europe, Christians are also becoming extinct by a process of "self-secularization". We risk losing not only our churches, but more importantly, our cultural strength and even confidence in the values of our own civilization.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Denis MacEoin : Does Condemning Islamic State Jihadis Constitute "Hate Speech"?


  • Being a student used to be an uncomfortable experience, during which the fantasies of adolescence were exposed to rational, well-informed, and evidence-based argument. But the cults of political correctness, unbounded gender definitions, Islamophobia-obsession, and anti-Semitism, among other afflictions, have undermined the educational process in the USA and Europe.
  • If Travers has identified anti-Semitism and signs of radicalization on campus, he has, not just the right, but the duty to expose them to the public eye.
  • It is not Robbie Travers who deserves to be disciplined by the university authorities; it is Esme Allman, for having sought to ruin Travers's reputation with charges that she cannot substantiate with evidence. Were I asked to adjudicate, I would recommend her permanent removal from an educational institution for which she is evidently unsuited. Defamation and character-assassination have no place in any university.
Robbie Travers, a third-year law student of 21, has made a mark for himself in Scotland at the prestigious Edinburgh University.
Apart from his many other activities, Travers has published articles on the Gatestone Institute site here, as well as for other outlets. He has written on subjects such as anti-Semitism in Europe, the "Fake News" censorship industry, Britain's Labour Party as a haven for racists, shari'a councils, the assault on free speech, and more.
An outspoken young man, he has become one of the best-known figures in the university.
Although openly gay and a supporter of a centrist, Tony Blair-ish position in politics, he has frequently come into conflict with fellow students on the radical left, with Muslim students, and with anyone who can be upset by anything that smacks of a challenge to their complacent politically correct sensitivities.
He is not afraid to call out radicals and expose them to criticism and factual information that so many modern students (and lecturers) are loath to hear.

On September 6, Robbie's face appeared across the British media, from the conservative Times to the leftist Independent, to the populist tabloids, the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, and the Sun.
Travers had been accused of hate speech and was being investigated by the university, who could well sanction him. What sort of "hate speech" was that?
Well, in a nutshell, he had referred to the jihadist fighters of Islamic State (ISIS) -- who variously burns or drowns people alive in cages, and sometimes in acid, or kills 250 children in dough-kneaders -- as "barbarians."


ISIS atrocities. Travers should have been praised, not discredited for pointing them out. Photo: YouTube/Screenshot.

You did not read that wrongly. It is now "racist" and "Islamophobic" to insult or ridicule the world's most unspeakable terror gang, who, among other atrocities, behead innocent men, women and children, rape innocent women, and sell harmless women as sex slaves to grunting murderers and pedophiles. One could not make this up.

Here is what seems to have happened. Travers writes often on Facebook and Twitter, and many left-wing students are possibly outraged by his views on matters such as Islam. Here, for example, is a post on his Facebook page on August 31. I very much doubt if anyone here would find anything offensive in it:
"I propose a toast to the Western world. Unfashionable in today's climate of moral relativism, but the UK, USA, Israel and other nations play a major role in shaping our world for the better. Whether it be standing against autocratic regimes, whether it be celebrating the freedoms of minorities & those who do not share the opinion of the majority.
"Our democracy has never faced a graver threat than the inhuman & theocratic peril posed by malignant, autocratic, and fascistic branches of Islamism. If we are to see our democracy continue from strength to strength, we must fight to defend our precious and treasured freedoms, rights and protection of minorities as much as jihadis struggle to destroy these just and tolerant values they despise."
On April 13, he posted something shorter:
"Excellent news that the US Administration and Trump ordered an accurate strike on an IS network of tunnels in Afghanistan. I'm glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins."

It is hard to see how there is anything remotely racist or "Islamophobic" about that. ISIS fighters come from a variety of races and they have attacked and killed many Muslims. But that is exactly what one intolerant student activist claimed it was.

Esme Allman, a second-year history student from inner-city London and the former black and ethnic minority convenor of Edinburgh's student association (who also calls herself not just a feminist but also a "womanist") was not an admirer of the positions Travers had taken on several subjects.

Her own stance can be seen in her campaign statement issued in her first year, when she was a candidate for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Officer. It included some interesting items in her manifesto: "I will continue to engage in the discussions started with academics on the WhyIsMyCurriculumWhite campaign" and "I will continue to work with the StudentsNotSuspects Campaign to protect student groups from the enforcement of the Prevent strategy."

Prevent is a central plank in the British government's wider counter-terrorism campaign, with particular attention to radicalization in schools and universities. It is greatly resented by far-left and activist students, many of whom invite radical preachers onto campus while banning pro-Israel and similar speakers.

Referring to Robbie's remarks about ISIS, the ironically named Ms. Allman made a formal complaint to the university, writing that "Not only do I believe this behaviour to be in breach of the student code of conduct, but his decision to target the BME Liberation Group at the University of Edinburgh, and how he has chosen to do so, puts minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear while attending the University of Edinburgh."

"Panic and fear" because a fellow student had expressed sentiments shared by a majority of the British public? Outside possibly a small minority of radical Muslims, it is hard to find anyone in the UK or other Western countries who has a good word to say for Islamic State.
Calling them "barbarians," it would seem, is going easy on them. ISIS's barbarism has been recorded by its own people in texts, on gruesome videos, in the pictures of children taught to behead prisoners with a knife, in the prices charged for female slaves in their marketplace. Islamic State barbarians would seem more appropriate as sources of fear and panic than Robbie Travers mocking them and celebrating their arguably deserved elimination.

According to the Times, "a university spokesman confirmed that 'complaints alleging misconduct have been received against Mr Travers and these are being investigated.'" No doubt the academic authorities are obliged to follow up on a complaint from a student, not least a student activist who appears eager to use her privilege as a member of a minority ethnic community and a woman. No doubt those same authorities are reluctant to tell such a student that she is being ridiculous for fear of the potential backlash that she and her fellow jargon-laden, politically-correct, and angry activists appear ready to unleash at them should a non-Muslim mention Islam or Muslims in the first place.

In recent years, universities have been all but dominated by angry young men and women who cannot bear to be disagreed with, exposed to counter-argument, or who seem desperate for "safe spaces" should a lecturer or professor say or write something challenging to their seemingly over-protected minds.

Being a student used to be an uncomfortable experience, during which the fantasies of adolescence were exposed to rational, well-informed, and evidence-based argument.
But the cults of political correctness, unbounded gender definitions, Islamophobia-obsession, and anti-Semitism, among other afflictions, have undermined the educational process in the US and Europe. More and more articles appear in intelligent journals and papers, lamenting this descent into puerile self-harm, conformism, and narcissism.

Unfortunately, defenders of safe spaces do not restrict their antics to hugging soft toys. It may seem to most readers that the complaint about Travers's comments on Islamic State should never be taken seriously by anyone. That is certainly how the press have reported the accusations against Travers.

But Allman's complaint takes matters into more alarming territory. It was presented co-signed by another BME student, Lindsey N'Kem. N'Kem's Facebook page is utterly bland, showing no evidence of political activism. She is apparently not known to Travers and seems to have no involvement with him, suggesting that Allman wrote the complaint herself and asked N'Kem to co-sign.

Oddly enough, the wording of the complaint refers to Allman in the third person, making it seem as though it comes from other individuals, not herself. It is a serious matter that could well damage Travers's career. I quote it in full here:
"I am submitting a complaint about Robbie Travers due to his targeting of minority students and student spaces at the University of Edinburgh. While I have not met him personally, given my matriculation at the University of Edinburgh, my membership of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) liberation group [liberation from what? Question by MacEoin] at the university, and how I identify personally, I take issue with this clear and persistent denigration and disparagement of protected characteristics and blatant Islamophobia.
"While this has gone on for years as evidenced by his Facebook Page, his direct and unfair targeting of this year's outgoing BME convenor Esme Allman was irresponsible and dangerous. On Sunday, 14/05/17, Travers published a decontextualized quote by Allman from a privileged conversation generated by minority students in a safe space [If the conversation was public, how is it "privileged"? Question by MacEoin] he is neither subscribed to nor a member of without her consent. In this intentional effort to 'ruin her career', Travers disclosed Allman's full name, her position at the university, and (implicitly) the university she attends and the city she lives in to his 17,000+ followers some of whom have evidenced either in the past or within the comments of the status, aggression and discussed sensitive information regarding Allman's sexuality and identity.
"Since then, Travers has stated that he intends to continue this inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour by advising that this is "phase 1," and he has many other "stings" planned.
"In this 2016/2017 school year alone, Robbie Travers has consistently mocked, disparaged, and incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics on numerous occasions."
"Not only do I believe this behaviour to be in breach of the student code of conduct, but his decision to target the BME liberation group at the University of Edinburgh, and how he has chosen to do so, puts minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear while attending the University of Edinburgh.
"His continual public disregard for other identities leaves me concerned for my safety and privacy as well as the safety of other students at the University of Edinburgh, given his willingness to remove statements from context and presenting them to a massive online audience, and the uninhibited and in some instances aggressive response of strangers to his statements.
"This person has gone unchecked throughout their time at this university in their constant barrage against minority identities and religious groups and attacks of BME and other minority students on campus. There is ample evidence of his willingness and ability to incite hatred against students who belong to various identities at the University of Edinburgh. In lying about anti-Semitism, racism, and radicalisation among BME students, and subjecting students to his online following, Robbie Travers has put minority students, liberation group representatives, and the safe spaces they create and maintain at the University of Edinburgh at risk of harm, physical or otherwise."
The picture this paints of Travers and his work does not correspond in the least to anything of his that others and I have read. It is a deeply politicized, unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo smear, evidently intended to inflict maximum damage on someone with whose views Allman is in disagreement. No doubt she and others of her group are discomposed by the free expression of opinions that challenge them and reveal them as the intolerant bigots that they show themselves to be.

There is no room here for more than a few simple comments on one or two of the charges. The reference to "blatant Islamophobia" implies that Travers employs the same kind of language used by far-right anti-Muslim racists. Perhaps Ms. Allman has never read anything like that. If so, she is fortunate. I have read a lot of it and worked to combat it, and I can assure readers that nothing Travers has ever written comes even close to it. The sort of criticisms he makes of IS and other radical Islamists who hold what he calls "regressive views" are exactly the sort of things said by moderate, devout, well integrated British Muslims such as Sara Khan, Majid Nawaz, Haras Rafiq, and many others, who can by no stretch of the imagination be termed "Islamophobes."

As for having "incited hatred against religious groups," his "constant barrage against minority identities and religious groups," his "attacks of BME and other minority students on campus," or "his willingness and ability to incite hatred against students who belong to various identities at the University of Edinburgh", questions need to be asked, as no Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'is or other religious groups have complained about Travers. Could Allman's "groups" really mean a handful of radical Muslims who react to charges of "Islamophobia" at every turn?

Finally, she accuses Travers of "lying about anti-Semitism, racism, and radicalisation among BME students". But anti-Semitism, according to several polls, is endemic within Muslim communities, even in the UK, and large numbers of young Muslims, according to government and security service sources have indeed been radicalized. "Racism" seems totally irrelevant. If Travers has identified anti-Semitism and signs of radicalization on campus, he has, not just the right, but the duty to expose them to the public eye.

As Travers wrote to a friend, "Note how I don't incite violence or hatred, and only mock ISIS. Are these opinions criminal?"

Above all, it should be noted that Allman does not provide a single shred of evidence for any of those allegations. Yet, without evidence, she has tried to destroy the life of a young man whose values echo those of most of the people in the country where Allman lives. 
It is not Robbie Travers who deserves to be disciplined by the university authorities; it is Esme Allman, for having sought to ruin Travers's reputation with charges that she cannot substantiate with evidence.
Were I asked to adjudicate, I would recommend her permanent removal from an educational institution for which she is evidently unsuited. Defamation and character-assassination have no place in any university.

Soeren Kern : European Court Orders EU Countries to Take Migrants


  • The September 6 ruling, which has been hailed as a victory for European federalism, highlights the degree to which the European Union has usurped decision-making powers from its 28 member states. The ruling also showcases how the EU's organs of jurisprudence have become politicized.
  • Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia.
  • "Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent." — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The European Union's highest court has rejected a complaint by Hungary and Slovakia over the legality of the bloc's mandatory refugee quota program, which requires EU member states to admit tens of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the European Union, has the legal right to order EU member states to take in so-called asylum seekers, and, conversely, that EU member states have no legal right to resist those orders.

The September 6 ruling, which has been hailed as a victory for European federalism, highlights the degree to which the European Union has usurped decision-making powers from its 28 member states. The ruling also showcases how the European Union's organs of jurisprudence have become politicized.

Opponents of the relocation scheme say that decisions about the granting of residence permits should be kept at the national level, and that by unilaterally imposing migrant quotas on EU member states, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are seeking to force the democratically elected leaders of Europe to submit to their diktat.

The dispute dates back to September 2015, when, at the height of Europe's migration crisis, EU member states narrowly voted to relocate 120,000 "refugees" from Italy and Greece to other parts of the bloc. This number was in addition to a July 2015 plan to redistribute 40,000 migrants from Italy and Greece.
Of the 160,000 migrants to be "shared," nine countries in Central and Eastern Europe were ordered to take in around 15,000 migrants. Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia voted against the agreement, they were still required to comply.

Since then, several states have refused to accept their assigned quotas of migrants. Poland, for example, has a quota of 6,182 migrants, not one of whom has been admitted. The Czech Republic has a quota of 2,691 migrants, of whom only 12 have been taken. Hungary has a quota of 1,294, none of whom has been admitted.
In the EU as a whole, so far only around 25,000 migrants have been relocated (7,873 from Italy and 16,803 from Greece), according to the EU's latest relocation and resettlement report, published on July 26, 2017. Of the 28 EU member states, only Latvia and Malta have taken in their full quotas — a combined total of 469 migrants.

Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. Hundreds of migrants who have been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest countries in the EU, have since fled to Germany and other wealthier countries in the bloc.

Hungary and Slovakia, backed by Poland, argued that the European Union broke its own rules and exceeded its powers when it approved the quota system with a "qualified majority" — around two thirds of the bloc's members. They also argued that the relocation scheme is a direct violation of the European Union's Dublin Regulation, a law that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first European country they reach.

The European Court of Justice ruled that a qualified majority vote was sufficient because the EU "was not required to act unanimously when it adopted the contested decision." The ruling, which did not mention the Dublin Regulation, concluded: "The mechanism actually contributes to enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the impact of the 2015 migration crisis and is proportionate."

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called the court ruling "outrageous and irresponsible" and "contrary to the interests of the European nations, including Hungary." He added: "The decision puts at risk the security of all of Europe and the future of all of Europe as well."

Szijjarto vowed that Hungary would continue to challenge any attempts by the EU resettle migrants in Hungary without its approval. "The real battle is only just beginning," he said, adding that the decision was political: "Politics has raped European law and values."

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said that while he "respected" the court's decision, his government's opposition to the relocation plan "has not changed at all." He added: "We will continue to work on having solidarity expressed in different ways other than forcing on us migrants from other countries that do not want to be here anyway."

Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło also was defiant: "I was convinced that the court would make such a decision, but this absolutely does not change the stance of the Polish government with respect to migration policy."

After the ruling of the European Court of Justice that the EU has the legal right to order member states to take in so-called asylum seekers, and that member states have no right to resist those orders, Polish PM Beata Szydło was defiant, saying, "this absolutely does not change the stance of the Polish government with respect to migration policy." (ECJ photo by Transparency International/Flickr; Szydło photo by Polish PM Chancellery)

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that the ruling means Eastern European member states must abide by the refugee sharing scheme: "I always said to our Eastern European partners that it is right to clarify questions legally if there is doubt. But now we can expect all European partners to stick to the ruling and implement the agreements without delay."

EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos welcomed the ECJ ruling: "ECJ confirms relocation scheme valid. Time to work in unity and implement solidarity in full." He warned holdouts of legal action if they do not comply with the refugee obligations "in coming weeks."

The European Commission has already initiated legal action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to take in their quotas of migrants. The so-called infringement procedure, which authorizes the Commission to sue member states that are considered to be in breach of their obligations under EU law, could lead to massive financial penalties.

The ECJ ruling and the continued threats from Brussels are likely to help Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán in his campaign for re-election in 2018. In a recent opinion survey, Orbán's Fidesz party polled at 53%, followed by the nationalist Jobbik party, at 21%. He has said that his campaign platform would focus on boosting the economy, improving security and preserving national identity.
Orbán, who has emerged as the standard-bearer of European opposition to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's "open-door" migration policy, has repeatedly warned that Muslim migrants are threatening Europe's Christian identity:
"Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent."
At a September 3 campaign rally in the town of Kötcse, Orbán cited expert predictions that more than 60 million people are expected to make their way from Africa into Europe during the next 20 years — thereby pushing Europe's Muslim population to above 20% by 2030. "The Islamization of Europe is real," Orbán warned.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Guy Millière : The Islamic Future of Europe


  • European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories. They see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam.
  • Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement whose actions are totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.
The terrorist attack in Barcelona received the same reaction as all the large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe: tears, prayers, flowers, candles, teddy bears, and protestations that "Islam means peace ".

When people gathered to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally.

Muslims organized a demonstration to defend Islam; they claimed that Muslims living in Spain are the "main victims" of terrorism.
The president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Societies, Mounir Benjelloun El Andaloussi, spoke of a "conspiracy against Islam" and said that terrorists were "instruments" of Islamophobic hatred.
The mayor of Barcelona, ​​ Ada Colau, cried in front of the cameras and said that her city would remain an "open city" for all immigrants.
The governor of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, used almost the same language. Spain's Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, a conservative, was the only one who dared to call jihadist terrorism by its name.
Almost all European journalists said Rajoy's words were too harsh.


After the attack in Barcelona, Spain, when people gathered at the site to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Pictured: "Anti-fascists" beat a man who they claimed is a "right-wing sympathizer" at Las Ramblas, Barcelona, on August 18, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Mainstream European newspapers describing the horror once again sought explanations to what they kept calling "inexplicable".
The leading Spanish daily newspaper, El Pais, wrote in an editorial that "radicalization" is the bitter fruit of the "exclusion" of certain "communities," and added that the answer was more "social justice".
In France, Le Monde suggested that terrorists want to "incite hatred", and stressed that Europeans must avoid "prejudice".
In the UK, The Telegraph explained that "killers attack the West because the West is the West; not because of what it does" -- but it spoke of "killers", not "terrorists" or "Islamists".

Anti-terrorism specialists, interviewed on television, said that the attacks, carried out across the continent at an ever-faster pace, will become deadlier. 
They noted that the original plan of the Barcelona jihadists had been to destroy the Sagrada Família Cathedral and kill thousands of people. 
The specialists parroted that Europeans will just have to learn to live with the threat of widespread carnage. 
They did not offer any solutions. 
Once again, many said that terrorists are not really Muslims -- and that the attacks "had nothing to do with Islam".

Many leaders of Western European countries treat Islamic terrorism as a fact of life that Europeans must get used to -- as some kind of aberration unrelated to Islam.

They often avoid speaking of "terrorism" at all. After the attack in Barcelona,​​ German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a brief reproach about a "revolting" event. She expressed "solidarity" with the Spanish people, and then moved on. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted a message of condolence and spoke of a "tragic attack."

Throughout Europe, expressions of anger are conscientiously marginalized.
Calls for mobilization, or any serious change in immigration policy, come only from politicians scornfully described as "populist."

Even the slightest criticism of Islam immediately arouses almost unanimous indignation. 
In Western Europe, books on Islam that are widely available are written by people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Tariq Ramadan. Books that are "politically incorrect" also exist, but are sold under the counter as if they are contraband.

Islamic bookstores sell brochures calling for violence without even hiding what they do. Dozens of imams, similar to Abdelbaki Es Satty, the suspected mastermind of the attack in Barcelona, continue to preach with impunity; if they are arrested, they are quickly released.

Submission reigns. 
The discourse everywhere is that despite increasing threats, Europeans must live their lives as normally as possible.
But Europeans see what threats exist.
They see that life is not even slightly normal.
They see policemen and soldiers in the streets, proliferating security checks, strict controls at the entrance of theaters and shops.
They see insecurity everywhere.
They are told just to ignore the source of the threats, but they know the source. They claim they are not afraid.
Thousands in Barcelona shouted, "No tinc por" ("We are not afraid"). In fact, they are scared to death.

Polls show that Europeans are pessimistic, and think the future will be bleak.
Polls also show that Europeans no longer have confidence in those who govern them, but feel they are left with no choice.

This shift in their lives has occurred in such a short time, less than half a century.
Before then, in Western Europe, only a few thousand Muslims were present -- mostly immigrant workers from former European colonies. They were supposed to be in Europe temporarily, so were never asked to integrate.

They soon numbered hundreds of thousands, then millions. Their presence turned permanent. Many became citizens. Asking them to integrate grew unthinkable: most seemed to consider themselves Muslim first.

European leaders gave up defending their own civilization. They slipped into saying that all cultures should be viewed the same way. They appear to have given up.
School curricula were altered. Children were taught that Europe and the West had plundered the Muslim world -- not that the Muslims had, in fact, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, most of Eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Cyprus, and Spain.
Children were taught that Islamic civilization had been splendid and opulent before colonization supposedly came to ravage it.

Welfare states, established in the post-war period, began to create a large underclass of people permanently trapped in dependency, just when the number of Muslims in Europe redoubled.

Social-housing neighborhoods suddenly were Muslim neighborhoods. The rise in mass unemployment -- mainly affecting less qualified workers -- transformed Muslim neighborhoods into mass-unemployment neighborhoods.

Community organizers came to tell unemployed Muslims that after purportedly looting their countries of origin, Europeans had used Muslim workers to rebuild Europe and were now treating them as useless utensils.

Crime took root. Muslim neighborhoods became high-crime neighborhoods.
Extremist Muslim preachers arrived; they reinforced a hatred of Europe. They said that Muslims must remember who they are; that Islam must take its revenge. They explained to young, imprisoned Muslim criminals that violence could be used for a noble cause: jihad.

Police were ordered not to intervene lest they aggravate the tension. High-crime areas became no-go zones, breeding grounds for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists.

European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories.

Riots took place; leaders made even more concessions. They passed laws restricting freedom of speech.

When Islamic terrorism first hit Europe, its leaders did not know what to do. They still do not know what to do. They are prisoners of a situation they created and cannot control anymore. They appear to feel helpless.

They cannot incriminate Islam: the laws they passed make it illegal to do that.

 In most European countries, even questioning Islam is branded as "Islamophobia". It leads to heavy fines, if not trials or prison time (as with Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geert Wilders or George Bensoussan). 
They cannot re-establish law and order in no-go zones: that would require the intervention of the army and a shift towards martial law. They cannot adopt the solutions proposed by parties they have pushed into opposition at the margins of European political life.

They cannot even close their borders, abolished in 1995 with the Schengen agreement
Re-establishing border controls would be costly and take time.

Europe's leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. 

They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them.

 Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create "deradicalization" programs that do not work: the "radicals," it seems, do not want to be "deradicalized."

Europe's leaders try to define "radicalization" as a symptom of "mental illness"; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. 

Then, they talk about creating a "European Islam", totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth.

They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain "open" to immigrants. 

Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.

European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist.

 They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But there is a lot they can do; they just do not want to -- it might cost them Muslim votes.

Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, you will have war." The same is true today.

Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement that is totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

Barcelona's Sagrada Família Cathedral was spared only thanks to the clumsiness of a terrorist who did not know how to handle explosives. Other places may not be so fortunate.

The death of Europe will almost certainly be violent and painful: no one seems willing to stop it. Voters still could, but they will have to do it now, fast, before it is too late.
Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Giulio Meotti : Europe's New Lie: Comparing Asylum Shelters to Nazi Concentration Camps

  • In the current crisis, governments, NGOs, charities and the media have all embraced migrants in the millions, and welcomed them with open arms. The Jews during the Second World War -- most of whom were turned away, turned in, or betrayed by all European governments -- were not so fortunate.
  • All of Europe's efforts have been devoted to rescuing migrants: on borders, at sea and in cities that host asylum centers. Such distinctions, however, are apparently not enough: the immigration question must become a new ideology, like a religion. That seems why there is an orchestrated attempt by large segments of the establishment to turn Europe's rescue operations into a "new Holocaust". Questioning them must become a taboo. Even Pope Francis, who compared a center for migrants to "concentration camps", adopted this nonsense.
  • Despite Muslims historically having been the most aggressive colonizers, Europe's élites have come to idealize them due to a mix of demographic decline, misconception of Islam, self-hate for the Western culture and a fatal, romanticized attraction for the decolonized Third World people.
What is the best way to shut down the debate on immigration? By heightening the language to levels impossible to be debated. That is what has been happening in the new -- and false -- trend of comparing the waves of migrants arriving in Europe to Jews during the Holocaust.

Recently, Franco Berardi, the Italian author of a play in Germany, "Auschwitz on the Beach", charged Europeans with setting up "concentration camps" on its territory. One line in the performance was, "Salt water has replaced Zyklon B" -- a reference to the poison gas used by the Nazis in World War II to exterminate Jews. After protests from the Jewish community, the play was cancelled.
Adam Szymczyk, the director of the Documenta exhibition, defined the show as a "warning against historical amnesia, a moral wake-up call, a call to collective action".
This response, while true for the mass-murder of Jews, is a grotesque distortion of what has been happening in Europe for the last three years. On the contrary, governments, non-governmental organizations, bureaucrats, charities and the media have all embraced migrants in the millions, and welcomed them with open arms.
The Jews during the Second World War -- most of whom were turned away, turned in or betrayed by all European governments -- were not so fortunate.


Auschwitz on the Beach?
In the current crisis, governments, NGOs, charities and the media have all embraced migrants in the millions, and welcomed them with open arms. Pictured: The Greek Red Cross helps an Afghan migrant who just arrived from Turkey with an inflatable boat on Lesvos Island, Greece, on December 13, 2015. (Image source: Ggia/Wikimedia Commons)


The current misrepresentation was first formulated by Sweden's deputy prime minister, Asa Romson. "We are turning the Mediterranean into the new Auschwitz", she said. Since then, this sham comparison has entered into the European mainstream, and the death of six million Jews has been turned into an ideological platform -- a parable of human suffering -- to justify importing even more unknown migrants. Even Pope Francis, who compared a center for migrants to "concentration camps", adopted this nonsense.

Jewish organizations in the US rightly condemned the comparison. David Harris, Executive Director of American Jewish Committee, said: "The Nazis and their allies erected and used concentration camps for slave labor and the extermination of millions of people during World War II, there is no comparison to the magnitude of that tragedy."

All of Europe's efforts, in fact, have been devoted to rescuing migrants: on borders, at sea and in cities hosting asylum centers. Such distinctions, however, are apparently not enough: the immigration question is apparently supposed to become the new ideology, like a religion. That is why there seems an orchestrated attempt by large segments of the establishment to turn the rescue operations into a "new Holocaust". Questioning them must become a taboo.

Despite Muslims historically having been the most aggressive colonizers, Europe's élites have come to idealize them due to a mix of demographic decline, misconception of Islam, self-hate for the Western culture and a fatal, romanticized attraction for the decolonized Third World people.

In Italy, currently at the center of the migrant crisis, the "Holocaust comparison" has even entered into the country's jurisprudence. An Italian tribunal recently ordered the government to pay compensation of 30,000 euros to the municipality of Bari for "damage to the image of the town" caused by the presence of a migrant identification center. "Think about Auschwitz, a place that immediately recalls the concentration camp of the Holocaust and certainly not the Polish town in the vicinity", the magistrate said.

According to the judiciary, a migrant center disfigures Italian territory just as the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp did the Polish town of Oświęcim. It is not even helpful to ask anyone, "Where are the gas chambers and the crematoria in the Italian migrant centers?" We are already in the field of ideological irrationality.

During World War II, Germans and their allies hunted down Jews in every corner of Europe, murdering them on the spot or deporting them to concentration camps, where they tortured and killed literally millions. Today's Germans, on the contrary, have opened their borders to millions -- seven out of ten of whom, according with the United Nations, are not even refugees but economic migrants simply seeking a better life.

Many Europeans are trying to close the debate about the supposed benefits of immigration by using "Holocaust words" such as "extermination" and "genocide". A headline in Italy's largest newspaper, La Repubblica, lamented, "Libya, fewer migrants have been arriving [in Europe] because they end up in a concentration camp..." These migrant centers, stated the paper, remind one of "the noteworthy atrocities of the 20th century".

These dramatic remarks seem to reflect a high degree of guilt by Europeans about not having offered more help to the Jews. Yet, we never hear any appeals from Europeans and groups -- unlike the US Congress -- to save Christians and Yazidis, who have truly suffered a genocide in regions controlled by ISIS. Instead, European leaders continue to close their eyes to the religious and ethnic persecution of minorities in the Middle East, including Jews, but are eager to point to "the Holocaust" to pressure European nations to open their borders to millions more migrants.

There was also an appeal recently, accompanied by a picture of barbed wire at a Nazi concentration camp, and signed by Italian intellectuals, personalities and non-governmental organizations which stated: "Our government is not indifferent to this carnage."
It is accomplished, it said, by sending ships to prevent migrants from leaving the African coast. The appeal even used the Nazi term Vernichtung ("extermination"). These comparisons simply diminish everyone's ability to distinguish between a mass-murder and a mass-rescue. It succeeds in letting migrants keep coming, whatever the cost.

A hysteria to adopt this false comparison had been proliferating. The magazine Famiglia Cristiana talked about the "the Holocaust of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea" -- as if Europeans had drowned them there deliberately. An online magazine, Linkiesta, actually called migrant centers "concentration camps where only furnaces and Zyklon B are missing". In Italy, a well-known priest, Father Zanotelli, said on television: "About migrants, one day they will say about us the same things we say about the Nazis and the Shoah". Oxfam Italia, a non-governmental organization, criticized an agreement between the Italian government and Libya to patrol their coasts and talked about "a real concentration camp".
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees wrote: "Migrants' centers? Just concentration camps".

Even musicians were recruited: "Shoah yesterday, migrants today: Ute Lemper sings for the invisibles". The Pime, the Catholic missionary center of Milan, wrote: "The Shoah and the refugees". Even the two presidents of the Italian Parliament, Pietro Grasso and Laura Boldrini, sponsored a conference called, "Europe, the Shoah, the massacres in the Mediterranean". The deception can also be seen on the website of the Italian Parliament. The lie is becoming official.

The point is that for the first time in a Western country, a debate about immigration -- how to manage and control it -- is being shut down. On one side, you find people who want to "stop the new Shoah" and, on the other side, "collaborators" who want to stop the large wave of unvetted migrants.

If there is a "Holocaust of refugees", those who oppose it are all branded as the "new Nazis".
That is the campaign against Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the most outspoken critic in Europe of unlimited migration. Austria's chancellor, Werner Faymann, has likened Orbán's policies of keeping refugees from entering Hungary to Nazis deporting Jews during the Holocaust.
Since then, Orbán has been often compared to Hitler for trying to protect both the borders of his country and the humanist-Judeo-Christian tradition of Europe.

The Italian Parliament this year established a "National Day to Remember Immigration Victims" by comparing it to the "International Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust Victims".

It is a powerful ideological ploy: in the "new Holocaust", the flow of refugees to Europe seems unstoppable. The perpetrators of this duplicitous myth are playing dirty with the future of Europe.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.